OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

The CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Colonel Burgoyne; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Briggs.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. BRIANT: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am rather fortunate in the circumstances under which I come to move the Second Reading of this Bill. In the first place, it is not promoted in the interests of employers or employed alone, but in the interests of both. There is no question of prejudice in this Bill. It is, as a matter of fact, desired by both classes, because it will benefit both. Let me at once say I do not think it is sufficiently recognised that, at any rate the small shopkeeper is a fellow-sufferer with the man whom he employs as, indeed, he probably has to work longer hours than his employee, because, after the shop is closed, he has to clear up his accounts. Therefore it is in the interests of both classes that I venture to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I am also fortunate in this respect, that most legislation is necessarily speculative in its nature, but in this case we have had three years' anticipatory experience of the working of the Bill, and that gives this measure an advantage, if it be an advantage, over other classes of legislation.
The House no doubt is aware, although, strangely enough, it does not seem to be so well known outside this House, that the present closing hours are not directly due to legislation, but are the result of regulations issued under the Defence of the Realm Act by the Home Office. The serious part of this problem—and a million and three-quarters of men and women will be affected by this Bill—is that, unless there is legislation quite soon, in August automatically the regulations will cease to have effect, and we know there is a large mass of men and women who will be thrown back in to the old bad and almost monstrous hours of the past. Therefore this House should not allow the opportunity to pass without endeavouring by legislation to perpetuate some of the best features of the regulations which have been enforced during the last few years. I am sanguine in the matter because the Home Secretary very recently received a deputation from the
Early Closing Association most sympathetically, and, in the course of the interview, suggested there might be a possibility of permanent legislation in order to avoid returning to the old hours. I think the Government and my right hon. Friend will therefore be very grateful to me, because, instead of having to further overload their legislative barque a private Member, with the facilities which the Government can give him, will enable them to carry into effect a Bill which the Government themeselves might almost feel compelled otherwise to bring forward. I am consequently somewhat optimistic that not only will the Government approve the main outlines of the Bill, but that they will also give facilities for passing it through Parliament.
I want, however, very shortly, to out-line the general movement in this direction. It is not always understood, and it is an almost pathetic fact, that the Early Closing Association has just held its seventy-eighth annual meeting. For seventy-eight years it has been striving to get decent and reasonable hours for employers and employed, and it is rather sad that for seventy-eight years it has tried and has failed. Praise is due to the Early Closing Association all the more because it has so many times met with rebuffs and has failed in its efforts, but it hopes, as we hope, that at last the time has come when no longer hours will be at the mercy of particular shop-keepers, or of any particular section of the population, but early closing will be enforced definitely by legislation. The Act of 1912 effected some good, but it had its limitations. It had one great advantage at least, that it gave a half-day weekly to the assistants. It instituted a system of Orders by which particular trades were directed to close at a given hour, but from the point of view of most of us the principle underlying that Act was a wrong one. The great thing we have to do is to train people to shop early, and one cannot do that by making a selection of certain trades to close on certain nights. The only way to teach people to shop early—and, after all, it is only a habit—is to make the closing order applicable to all trades, so that the public will understand that on one particular night they cannot shop after a certain hour. This can never be done by piecemeal legislation or by Orders.
Further—and this, too, is rather pathetic—all voluntary efforts have been tried, and it is because of their failure that we are now appealing to Parliament for assistance in the matter. Time after time have those who were anxious to close endeavoured to arrive at what they required by voluntary methods, but practically they have always failed, and for very excellent reasons. Take the case of fifty shopkeepers who are extremely anxious to close at eight o'clock. If three men hold out and refuse so to close for purely selfish reasons, they can, and do, attract custom from those who close, so that in the long run one always finds that after a certain time the other traders revert to the old hours, and thus you have the vicious system of shops remaining open during the old hours. Voluntary efforts, therefore, have failed, and what is to be done must be done by definite legislation. The House of Commons itself twenty-seven years ago—and this shows that the House of Commons does not do things in a hurry—passed a resolution to the effect that unnecessarily long hours of opening are injurious to health. Up to the time of the war, however, these long hours continued. Then—and it is not altogether creditable to this nation—for the first time early closing was adopted, not for humanitarian reasons, not in the interests of the shopkeeper or his assistant, but simply because we wanted to save coal for the war. That is not very creditable to humanity or common-sense, but I do not hesitate to say that the experience gained in these years, whatever the reason for the change, has been invaluable, and it enables us to approach the question not from a speculative point of view but from the point of view of definite experience.
What has been that experience? The fears and suspicions very natural to many, and particularly so to small shopkeepers who, with heavy rates to pay, have a job to make a living, those fears and suspicions that they were going to lose a lot of their trade by reason of being compelled to close early have been allayed, and it has been found that early closing has not resulted in any such loss of trade. Further, not only has there been no loss of trade, but they have been able to carry on much more economically. When one remembers that every hour a shop is kept open means so much light and heating it becomes apparent that the earlier you
close the better it is for the shopkeeper from the point of view of his pocket. But this has a much wider aspect for us. We in this House are painfully familiar with the many discussions we have had on the necessity for further coal production. We are familiar with the fact that many industries are being held up for the want of sufficient coal. Here is a method by which you can ensure that thousands of tons of coal are going to be saved for the nation, and when one remembers, too, that with the Daylight Saving Act during the summer probably nine out of every ten shops, if this Bill is passed, will not need artificial light, it can easily be seen by Members of this House what an immense saving that will mean to the nation in the matter of both gas and coal. Therefore, from a purely national point of view, we are advocating this measure. But there are other reasons, even wider than these.
I want to point out the exact objects of the Bill. There are two points in which it differs considerably from the present regulations. One is the hour of closing. At present it is 9 o'clock on Saturdays-and 8 o'clock on other nights. The Bill reduces that by one hour to 8 on Saturdays and 7 on other nights. I admit that is a debateable point, and there may be-some controversy in Committee on it, but I think experience has shown already that 7 o'clock is, as a rule, late enough to keep open. It is rather an extraordinary fact that large shops and big stores have quite voluntarily closed far earlier than they were compelled under the regulations, and, in addition, the small shopkeeper will keep open probably to the limit of his time, and he has one or two hours above the opening hours of the large man, in which he picks up stray business and gets that form of business which particularly the small trader lays himself out for. Of course, there is no. proposal to alter the hours of tobacconists: and confectioners. They may remain open till 9 o'clock on Saturdays and 8 o'clock on other nights. There are also-exceptions, as there were before, in the case of perishable foodstuffs—for instance, fried fish and the intoxicating liquor trade. Many newspaper shops would be very glad to close at an early hour, but there is no provision in the Bill, for, what seems to me, adequate reasons. It is obvious that if a newspaper
shop cannot be open for the sale of newspapers after 8 o'clock, it will not be fair if the vendor in the street is allowed to sell newspapers, because, obviously, he will lose all that part of his custom; and I do not think the time is ripe for saying that no newspaper shop is to remain open after 8 o'clock. Most hon. Members, at various times, have purchased papers at a much later hour than that, if it is only to see the result of elections. There is a notable example of what can be done. There is no trade probably which has kept open for later hours than butchers. In the New Cut and Lambeth Walk, two of the moat celebrated marketing thoroughfares in London, the butchers used to remain open until twelve o'clock on Saturday nights and they used to be working for fourteen and fifteen hours a day, and even on Saturday nights after closing at twelve there was some work to be done when the shop was closed and they had to work again on Sunday morning. That was slavery. It is a singular result of rapidly-acquired experience that under the Act of 1912 butchers themselves quite voluntarily have asked and obtained an Order by which they shall close at seven o'clock on every night except Saturday, and at eight o'clock on Saturdays. The very traders who, by reason of selling perishable goods, thought it necessary to keep open till twelve, have asked for and obtained an Order by which they can close not later than eight o'clock on any night in the week, and that shall be the latest hour, even on Saturday. That is significant, because it shows that when the shopkeeper looks into the question closely he finds that many of his fears were entirely illusory, and he can close without loss of money, and, indeed, he gains in money altogether apart from other advantages.
There may be a proposal made at a later stage that the shift system shall be adopted in shops. I should very strongly object to the introduction of such a system for two reasons at least. One is that the small shopkeeper will not be able to have the shifts himself. If he employs two or three men he has to be there the whole time the shop is open. Secondly, if you keep a shop open for longer hours you make no reduction in gas and heating, which to my mind is a very important matter for the State to consider particularly at present. Therefore,
I think that system is unworkable and unwise from every point of view. As regards the general question, I do not think it necessary to give details as to the hours. Anyone who knows the old hours and has seen, as I have, young men and women white and anaemic through long hours of standing—twelve, thirteen, even fourteen hours—in a shop and knows as I know that those long hours meant that they were deprived of all the ordinary amenities of life and that life was one long slavery, going to bed tired and waking up tired, with not sufficient rest even to make the ordinary enjoyment of life possible, will agree that this cannot continue. We have to deal with a class which in the past has often been subject to stupid and shallow jests. The counter jumper is a favourite joke with the shallow mind, and the "shop-girl" was often cynically spoken of. I do not think we shall hear much about that in the future. The counter jumper, when it came to war, showed himself as loyal and as courageous as any other man, and tens of thousands of shop girls after their laborious work gave their spare time voluntarily for work in hospitals and in other ways when the nation required it.
They deserve, perhaps, more consideration than other classes, because in the main they have hitherto been inarticulate. It is difficult to organise when you are dealing with men and women scattered about in small sections of twos, threes and fours. It is easy in a large factory with 500 men, but very difficult when they are scattered about. They have not grumbled much in public; they have threatened no strike and have done nothing to obstruct public business. For that very reason the House should give them a ready and a sympathetic ear. I believe the House will be sympathetic, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman will adopt a sympathetic attitude. The Bill will mean the emancipation of 1,750,000 people, and not the least deserving of the population. I ask on their behalf that they shall have facilities for all the ordinary recreations and joys of life which many of them had not experienced till the present Regulations came into force. I ask that they shall be be put in the same position as the working men who demand eight hours a day, and I am glad the ordinary man and woman is getting less hours a day. But that is only a further proof that late
hours of shopping are not necessary, because almost every week a further class of workers gets shorter hours, enabling them to have longer hours in which to purchase. I believe the British public, when it knows the facts and realises that what may be their pleasure is pain and suffering to many hundreds of thousands, will willingly submit to a slight inconvenience in order that others may have the advantage. I strongly ask the House to pass the Second Reading and they will receive the thanks of many thousands who have not made their voices much heard but, nevertheless, deserve and will obtain, I believe, the sympathy of the House and that protection which they desire and which the House, I believe, will grant.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I esteem it a great privilege to be able to support the Second Reading of this Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very effective speech that he has made in moving the second reading. It is true that if this House adopts this Bill, it is making no uncertain experiment, because the foundation of the Bill is based upon the successful results conferred by the general closing order for shops under D.O.R.A. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will be surprised to know that there is a regulation under D.O.R.A. which has proved successful, and what a very large number of people desire to see made permanent.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is about the only one.

Sir K. WOOD: That may be so. Under this particular Order by which Shope have been closed at an earlier period shop assistants have achieved what long years of agitation failed to do. For the first time in their lives it has given If millions of shop assistants their evenings oft, and, coupled with the provision which has been made in connection with the regulation as to summer-time each year, it has enabled shop keepers and their assistants to have two or three hours in the daylight for the first time in their history. Therefore, whilst D.O.R.A. is perhaps the least popular lady in these islands to-day, there are 1¾ millions of shop assistants who rise and call her blessed. I had one correspondent who wrote to me concerning the Bill when I first had the honour of introducing it, who said that in days gone by
the trades had their patron saint, and suggested that D.O.R.A. would not escape canonisation by those who earned their living behind the shop counters. This Bill also has the support of the shopkeepers. A very interesting Report in this connection was issued by the London County Council last year. They were approached by the East End Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Asociation asking that in view of the great advantages conferred by the general early closing orders for shops, the County Council should take steps to secure that the benefits enjoyed under the Order should be made permanent. The Association pointed out that the trade which they represented was averse to reverting to the established hours which prevailed before the War, and that they were anxious that the improved conditions established under the Order should be made permanent. As a result of this request, the County Council made a very exhaustive inquiry as to whether the representations were correct so far as the shopkeepers of London were concerned, and a number of inspectors from the County Council visited over 1,000 different shops of all classes of trade in different areas to ascertain and record the view of the shopkeepers. They not only took the prominent shopping centres, but inquiry was made as to the views of the small shopkeepers, and a very remarkable result was obtained from that inquiry, which showed that the shopkeepers, both large and small, were overwhelmingly against a return to pre-war conditions. The inspectors also noted that not only were these particular traders desirous of the Order being made permanent in the shape of legislation, but that they wanted earlier hours as well. To give two or three illustrations to show the concensus of opinion in London in favour of this proposal, I may point out that in the district of Paddington, out of 1,000 shops visited, 979 were in favour of early closing and only 15 against.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Will the hon. Member say whether those 1,000 shops visited were one man businesses or large businesses?

Sir K. WOOD: According to the Report every variety of shop was visited. The reference to the inspectors was that, "each area should include a prominent shopping thoroughfare which could be regarded as the shopping centre of the area selected, and it should embrace side
and parallel thoroughfares of a depth sufficient to include a proper representation of the views of small shopkeepers." I suppose there is no district of London which has more small shopkeepers than the districts of Stepney and Bethnal Green, and there a similarly remarkable result was obtained, for out of over a thousand shops visited, 949 were in favour of early closing, and only 59 against. The other figures are available and can be seen. That fairly represents the views of London so far as early closing is concerned. The shopkeeper, not only in London, but throughout the country, has no longer any dread of early closing. He has found during the War period that there has been no diminution in the volume of his trade. His expenses have been reduced in respect of lighting and heating. What used to be known as the early closing ruin so far as the shopkeeper was concerned has disappeared. It is a remarkable feature of a largo number of trades to-day that many shopkeepers are voluntarily closing at the early hour of six. I do not want to pose as an optimist, but I hope that some day we shall see legislation which will bring that hour into existence for all classes of trades. Early closing has been for the benefit not only of the shop assistant and his employer, but it has been for the benefit of the public. It has drilled shoppers into the habit of shopping earlier. Late shopping in the vast majority of cases is simply a bad habit. I am told by many shop assistants, and by the energetic Secretary of the Early Closing Association, that there is not a great deal to choose between the habit of the West-End lady who shops, and the habit of the woman who goes to day is to be found in the West-End shops, though it was asserted at a meeting at which I was present that the worst offender and the most selfish shopper today is to be found in the West End shops. I cannot say whether that is so. At any rate I do know that any temporary inconvenience that may be caused to the public—and the portion of the public which deserves the most sympathy are people who perhaps owing to their work may be inconvenienced by early closing to some small extent—could be largely removed if employers would respond to the appeals that have been made constantly
to them and make an earlier payment of wages each week.
I have been, as other Members I am sure have been, concerned as to whether the provisions of this Bill will affect adversely the small trader. Of the few letters of opposition which have reached me in respect of this Measure have put forward the view of the small trader. The promoters of the Bill have made an attempt in one of the clauses to deal with his particular case. I do not know what the Home Secretary will think of the proposal, but there is provision for setting up a council in each locality to which not only any class of trade can appeal for an extension of their trading time by one hour, but any individual trader in the case of hardship is allowed to appeal to that particular council. There is an earnest desire on the part of the promoters of this Bill to cover every conceivable case of difficulty and hardship, but regard must be had to this aspect. We know that to-day a large majority of big shopkeepers are closing earlier than is proposed under the compulsory powers of this Bill. Therefore, the small traders have this advantage, that their shop will in most cases remain open one hour later than those of the big shopkeeper. It can be said from general observation that small shopkeepers have their own particular clients, and when these regulations come to be made it will be found, as the operations under D.O.R.A. have proved, that the small trader will not lose under early closing, but will get many benefits from what I regard as a thing beneficent not only to himself but also to his assistants.
I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the shift system, and has taken objection to it, because the person who would suffer most, in my opinion, from a system of shifts in shops, say two or three shifts in big shops, would be the small trader, because he would be unable to make such arrangements himself, and would be very much at the mercy of the large shopkeeper in this connection. There is another point which will appeal to those Members of the House who regard economy as of importance. This is one of the few Bills that have been introduced by private members which make no call on the national purse. Under this Bill a great deal of money will be saved, not only in lighting and heating, but in what I regard as much more important,
that, is, that it will improve vastly the health of the shop assistants of the country, and save the country a very big sum in that way. For that reason I am glad to see so many Members taking an interest in this Bill. I believe that the Bill represents a considered demand that there should be, with regard to the 2,000,000 shop assistants of the country, no going back to the system of late hours, which was utterly inimical to health, and the moral and intellectual welfare not only of the shop assistants, but of the shopkeepers themselves.

Sir P. MAGNUS: I need scarcely say that I have listened with great interest to the two speeches which we have heard. It would be difficult if not impossible to say that there will be general agreement with many of the proposals which have been made by these two speakers. I desire to point out some of the disadvantages as. I regard them, of this Bill. I hope that it will not be thought that I personally am in favour of long hours for workers engaged in any particular kind of industry. What I object to very much in this Bill—and I am sure there must be other Members who share my objection—is that it is one of a series of Bills which have been introduced lately, interfering very largely, and I believe to an unnecessary extent, with the ordinary liberty of the subject. (Laughter.)

Mr. SEXTON: Trot it out.

Sir P. MAGNUS: It is a painful thing that Members should laugh at an indication of disapproval of interference with the liberty of the subject. This Bill interferes with the liberty of citizens who know much better what they want than probably any of the Members of this House. It has occurred to me, when I have heard Bills of this kind introduced here, that the future historian of this country will find it very difficult to reconcile two opposing tendencies of social legislation which have characterised the early decades of this century. On the one hand there has been a general movement, supported by all Members of the House, and by the whole country, to improve the education of the people so as to render citizens generally intellectually and morally more capable of looking after their own affairs, knowing what they want, and more eager to advance the interests of the country in which they live. On the other hand, we have
seen great restrictions imposed on the liberty of the people—restrictions imposed on the liberty of the very citizens whose education it is proposed to improve. What have we been doing during the last few years? We have raised the compulsory school age of children to 18; we are giving larger salaries, much needed, to our teachers; we have been giving them pensions in order that the education which they give to the citizens of the country may be better than it was before. All the while that you are improving the capacity of the citizens of this country to use their own judgment, to exercise their own will, we in this House are imposing more and more restrictions upon the exercise of that will. Those are tendencies which it would be very difficult to reconcile. A very well known educationist said it was inhuman to want faith in education, and yet if a Bill could indicate a lack of faith of educated citizens in the value of education, surely it is a Bill such as this, which tries to fetter the liberty of the educated young man or young woman and to prevent the exercise of that sense of responsibility which education is intended to promote, and at the same time to destroy the initiative and resourceful-ness which belong to every citizen.
It is on those general grounds, in the first place, that I consider this Bill is not calculated to benefit the country. If the Bill were necessary or essential I should feel differently, but what I feel very strongly is that the Bill not only confers no advantages upon any of those persona whom it is intended to benefit, but that it is wholly unnecessary. I have not been able to gather from either of the speeches delivered why it is that the shopkeeper, among all traders, is unable to look after his own interest and to know what is best for himself and for his employés, if we suppose he is a human being—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not always"]—and at the same time to recognise what may be of advantage to the State. I quite understand that there are certain industries and certain cases in which it is necessary to impose restrictions upon, I will not say the freedom, but the licence of citizens. Certainly that was very necessary during the War. The War represented a wholly abnormal condition of social life. People were not accustomed to what was required in times of
war, and it was very necessary in many matters to impose such restrictions as are implied by the regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. One does not like them, but has to submit to them. On the other hand, in times of peace things are different, and when one reverts to times of peace, as I hope we have done, one also wants to revert to the former normal social conditions. A remarkable fact in this Bill is that it recognises no difference between war time and peace time. Having accustomed the people for a certain period to restrictions on their liberties, hon. Members say, "Let those restrictions be permanent." That is contained in the Memorandum of the Bill. We read there;
This Bill proposes to abolish the system of closing orders …. and to substitute therefor provisions requiring the closing of all shops at a fixed hour on the lines of the system which have been found during the War to work satisfactorily.
How many other systems during the War have been found to work satisfactorily, and are we to impose by legislation restrictions on the liberty of the subject in all those cases? Cannot we leave the people alone for a little while? The supposition underlying this Bill is that what is good in times of war must be continued in times of peace. To my mind, not only is that bad but it involves other objections. I see that instead of effecting economy the very machinery which is to be set up by this Bill is likely to involve further cost to the country. The Bill imposes a large number of obligations upon our local authorities. Those who are members of local authorities know well that the local authorities are already overworked, that the tasks imposed upon them are every day becoming greater, and that the result of that is that the rates are likely to be increased, and have been increased in very many cases. No one objects to an increase of rates where the increase is attended with beneficial consequences, but where an increase of rates depends upon the setting up of new officials to watch over the exercise of the liberty of the subject then one cannot fail to object very much indeed. I have looked very carefully at some of the clauses of this Bill. I find the memorandum gives a very good account of the Bill. We read:—
In order to ensure that local authorities ill making Orders shall be in touch with the
needs of the district, provision is made that before making any Orders under the Bill or under the Act, the local authority shall give public notice of any proposed Order and shall institute an Early Closing Committee. The Committee will have the assistance of a small Advisory Council—
What does that mean? Docs it not mean the officials and clerks will be required and that the cost of the machinery created to carry out these restrictive measures will result in a considerable addition to the rates of the country? That alone is not an advantage, but a great disadvantage.
1.0 P.M.
I want to say a word or two with regard to the classes of person who, it is considered, will be largely benefited by this Bill. The mover and seconder have correctly divided those persons into three classes—namely, the shopkeepers, the assistants and the general public. As regards the shopkeepers, I should certainly have thought that they were best able to look after their own interests—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are!"]—but it is a little remarkable that both the mover and the seconder gave reasons showing that the Bill is unnecessary. The shopkeepers are divided into two classes—the large shopkeepers and the small shopkeepers. We are told that the large shopkeepers have already decided to close their shops at an early hour. Why, then, is it necessary to bring in legislation to compel a large class of intelligent citizens to do what they have already done? We are told that not only are they closing their shops at the hour prescribed by this Bill, but in many cases earlier. Is not that a sufficient reason to leave shopkeepers to do what is right without imposing on them legislative restrictions. I have received, like other hon. Members, a pamphlet from the Early Closing Association, in which they ask my careful attention to fourteen points they have raised, and I have given that attention. In the fourth point it is stated that the big traders now close two hours earlier than small traders, which gives an ample margin, and that the co-operative stores, dealing almost exclusively with the working classes, have always closed two hours earlier than small traders. I see it is further stated that compulsory closing in the past has undoubtedly shown traders that just as much trade can be done in fewer hours as in the longer hours, and, that a considerable reduction could be
made in regard to lighting. If all those advantages obtain in early closing, how can anyone recognise there is any necessity for legislation to enforce it. It seems to me absolutely impossible to realise that legislation should be required to do what these intelligent persons have already done, in their own interest. There is another class of trader who it is supposed might be opposed to this Bill, Exemptions are to be permitted, and those can only be permitted by the will of the local authority for each district. The local authorities, therefore, will be required to consider every case, and every application for exemption must be submitted to them. I again ask Members to realise the extra cost involved if these officials have to consider all those several applications for exemption. But the Bill docs recognise that whilst the large shopkeepers already close at earlier hours than those which the Bill says is necessary, exemption will be given to small shopkeepers.
Clause 3 (2) provides that
Where a local authority is of opinion that it is necessary for avoiding the infliction of undue hardship in any particular case, the local authority may, whether or not a majority of the shops in the district are in favour thereof, by Order grant to the occupier of a particular shop in its district the same exemption as it may grant under this section to a class of shops.
It is regarded as one of the advantages of the Bill that small shops can be exempted, after all applications for such exemption have been carefully examined, For these reasons it seems to me both in the interests of the large shop-keepers, who already close early, and in the interests of the small shop-keepers who can obtain exemption that this Bill as affecting shop-keepers is absolutely un-necessary. We are asked to remember the case of the shop assistants. That is more important because it is a very hard case indeed if shop assistants should be required to attend in shops for twelve or thirteen or fourteen hours as mentioned by the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading. I would remind the House that assistants are more largely employed in big shops, and, therefore, the case of the assistants scarcely arises, seeing that shop-keepers have already decided in the large shops and stores to reduce the hours of working even beyond those presented in the Bill. The shop assistants
are a very large body, and an educated class of people with the franchise for men and women, and surely they are quite capable of forming a trade union for themselves and insisting, as trade unions rightly can, on the conditions of work being satisfactory as to payment and otherwise. If they formed such a union, would it be possible for any shopkeeper to compel these young men and women to work longer hours than those they would arrange. Therefore that seems to me to absolutely dispose of the case of the shop assistants. As to the small shops, I see no reason why small shopkeepers should be prevented if they like to keep their shops open longer hours than might be thought advantageous in other cases. As regards the public everybody has admitted that they may be inconvenienced by this Bill. We have been told by the hon. Member who seconded that purchasers have already been drilled and trained to shop at earlier hours. If they recognise the power of drilling and training why not recognise the value of training by teachers in schools? We are told that if a person enters a shop two minutes after the hour at which the shop ought to be closed, that person cannot be served, and if he or she is served the shopkeeper will be subject to fines and penalties. We are told that medicine or medicinal or surgical appliances may be sold so long as the shop is kept open only for such time as is necessary to serve the customer. Just consider the vexatious character of regulations of this kind. If the chemist speaks on any other matter to the person he is serving he will be liable to fines and penalties. Is it right to impose these vexatious regulations upon this class of persons? As regards the keeping open of shops, if a Bill had been introduced compelling certain shops to keep open to a much later hour, I think there might have been something to be said in its favour. Take the case of the East End of London. How many hon. Members know of the conditions there? Is it recognised how seldom those residing in the East End have the opportunity of seeing the splendid exhibits in our shops in the West End? What an educational advantage it might be to them if they could walk down Bond Street at eight or nine o'clock in the evening, look at the windows, and have an opportunity of seeing things that they have never seen before. I do not say
that I am proposing it. It is not in the Bill, but I can conceive that it would be an educational advantage to them, as it is to those who have the opportunity. It must be remembered that conditions vary in different localities I have had a letter from the Manchester Retail Traders' Association objecting to this Bill, and one of the reasons which they give is by no means a bad one—
There is in Manchester, and in other places also, a large floating population, and in normal times thousands of excursionists will again visit Manchester, and, not only will it be a keen disappointment to them to find the shops closed, but it will cause a serious loss of business which will never be recovered.
Members who know the rural districts and the large towns will realise that people very often cannot find an early opportunity of shopping. They are compelled to go later, and, if they find all the shops closed, it will be a very great inconvenience to them. I have no intention of detaining the House. I only wish to bring before it some of the disadvantages of this Bill. It seems to me unnecessary to the shopkeeper, useless to the assistant, and disadvantageous to the public generally. Further than that, the machinery involved in giving effect to the Bill will cost large sums of money at a time when economy is being preached from all quarters of the House. For these reasons, I hope that hon. Members will give very careful consideration to the observations which I have ventured to make before voting for the Second Reading.

Mr. HINDS: I want to say one or two words with regard to this Bill, and I think I have a claim to speak, having been connected now for over forty years with shop life in London. I came up forty years ago as a raw young man from Wales, and during the whole of that time I had been connected with shop life and have been working for the amelioration of shop life. When I first came to London the hours were long and the conditions were poor. To-day they are very much improved, and it makes me sad to hear a respected Member of this House, the Member for the University of the City of London (Sir P. Magnus), who knows nothing whatever about shop life, speaking like we have heard him this morning. I wonder if he would have spoken like that if his sons and daughters
had gone through the training through which I have had to go. He said one or two things which are absolutely wrong. In the first place, he said that education makes a man more independent.

Sir P. MAGNUS: It should be so.

Mr. HINDS: I know very well the service that the hon. Member has rendered to education—we all recognise that—but here we have a Bill for which the Early Closing Association has been agitating for the last fifty years. I have had the honour of being the Chairman of that Association, and I know what we have gone through. It is a voluntary Association, supported by employers and employés, to better shop life, but for education we want more time. Before the War the hours were unnecessarily long; in the last three years we have proved that they were unnecessary, and that the work of the shops all over the country can be done in less hours. We want our men to get more recreation and more education. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would say the weekly half holiday was a bad thing?

Sir P. MAGNUS: It has been generally adopted.

Mr. HINDS: His mentality this morning would lead one to believe that he would oppose even that.

Sir P. MAGNUS: No, but I think it might be left to the good sense of the people to give the half holiday It has been given for years and years

Mr. HINDS: People have kept their shops open in the Old Kent Road, and in different parts in the East End, up to 11 and 12 o'clock on Saturday. One would have thought that the good sense of those people would have led them to close their shops at a reasonable hour, but they have not done so. That half-holiday once a week has been one of the greatest boons to our young people and to the employers themselves. Those young people joined the Volunteers, and, when the War broke out, they were prepared, because they had gone through a lot of classes.

Sir P. MAGNUS: The hon Member has forgotten that the half-holiday was given under the Bill of 1912.

Mr. HINDS: I remember it perfectly well. I was on that Committee, and I know the failings of that Bill, after eight
years' working on it. The hon. Member said that this Bill meant labour and expense to the local authorities. Did not the 1912 Bill? The labour involved by this Bill will be far less.

Mr. JESSON: They have the machinery.

Mr. HINDS: They have the machinery and I think very few people will ask the Local Authorities for exemption. Public opinion has been educated in the past few years, and they are asking for it. May I say one thing as a practical man? The long hours, from which we have suffered in the past, and from which to some extent we are suffering to-day, have kept back from the trade some people who otherwise would have gone into it. Fathers and mothers will not put their children into it because of the long hours. I want to lessen those hours and to make it a respectable trade. I want to give hours of recreation for the employer as well as the employee. The hon. Member said that a lot of shopkeepers already close early. They do, because they attract the best assistants. It is very difficult for the poor man who from custom keeps open late to get assistants at all.
I am very glad to think that in the past attempts have been made by legislation to improve shop life, but many of those attempts have not been successful, simply because there were divisions in the ranks. This Bill has been before the shopkeepers of the country since last August, and we have had from all classes from small shopkeepers as well as large shopkeepers, the greatest support. It has been well received. I have not much faith in the orders under the Bill of 1912 They are cumbersome in operation, expensive to the ratepayers, and disappointing in their results. The object of this Bill is to abolish the system of closing orders which was established in 1912 and to provide that all shops should be closed at fixed hours according to the method which was successful during the War. The position of the small trader will not suffer. Before he was compelled to close, he was afraid that he might suffer, but he found by experience that he did not suffer in the way that he expected. I am surprised that my hon. Friends of the Labour party have not done more, and I think they could have done more, to bring this
movement to a successful issue by advising the working people to get into the habit of shopping earlier. It was simply a bad habit of shopping late that they had been accustomed to. Now that the employers are paying the workpeople on Friday nights the workpeople are able to do their shopping on a Saturday afternoon.

Mr. ADAMSON: Would the hon. Member suggest what he thinks the Labour Party could have done when he says they could have done more to help this movement?

Mr. HINDS: I think they could have created a stronger public opinion in their own ranks, so as to get the people out of the habit of shopping late. They have not done as much as they could have done in that direction. I hope that this Bill will get all the support that it deserves on all sides. We have no desire to crush the small shopkeeper. If there was any such desire this House would rebel against it. There is a Clause inserted to meet any cases of great hardship. It would enable people to ask for the exemption of shops in special cases, but we think that the working of the Measure will obviate the necessity for many exemptions. I hope the Bill will go through. It is a moderate one, and as the result of my experience, I have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary if we are to get what we require. We have tried by voluntary means to bring about early closing, but there was always some selfish man—there are some selfish men everywhere—who spoiled the full effect of our efforts, and we have come to the conclusion that this Bill is absolutely necessary. We are working for a better future in shop life, and we think that this House will be doing a good and a great work by giving this Bill a Second Reading, If there is anything shown in the Committee stage whereby any special hardship can be removed, we will try to be reasonable in that respect. If the Bill is passed, we will be providing a charter for the 175,000 people who are working in the shops. Their life has not been so happy in the past as it might have been. Let us try to make it more cheerful, and we will bring a reward to our own selves and do something to satisfy the hopes of these people.

Major Sir PHILIP SASSOON: I wish to support this Bill, and when I think of the hour at which this House finished its deliberations this morning I am surprised that there should be any opposition to bringing into existence a fixed closing hour for all establishments. So far as my experience goes, I know that this Bill is supported by the local authorities and by the mass of the trading classes. I will not go into the special details of the Bill because they have been so well dealt with by the promoters and by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I rest my case on the general argument that this Measure has been put up against the actual test of experience and that the result has been wholly favourable. I really cannot imagine why anybody should oppose this Measure. The hon. Baronet who represents London University (Sir P. Magnus), has said that the system of early closing generally was a war restriction and that was restrictions should no longer be allowed to continue. I agree with that in principle, but if a Regulation has been found necessary and expedient in war time, I fail to sec why it should be incapable of beneficial results in time of peace. To use that argument is carrying the application of the principle too far. I think it is wholly out of place so far as this Measure is concerned. The fact of a Regulation of this sort having worked successfully and beneficially in the time of war suggests to me that it might work even better in the normal conditions of peace, and that it will work more successfully and beneficially for all classes concerned. One strong argument which has been brought forward by the promoters in favour of this Bill is that it is especially a health Measure. With that I absolutely agree and on that ground it should have the sympathy of the whole House. I do not think that there can be any objection to it on the ground of any general principle. I think that there is ample time for people to do their shopping during the day. The majority of the shopkeepers are in favour of it, and that should recommend it.
There is no question of applying a general principle against it, because that was given up when the Shops Act was placed upon the Statute Book, and the whole ground of opposition to a fixed closing hour was completely swept away. To safeguard special cases there was ample provision both with regard to particular
needs and localities. Therefore I do not think that the hon. Baronet is entitled to argue against this measure of any motive of high principle. When I hear of this application of high principle I am reminded of the story of a citizen of the United States who was boasting that he had had a magnificent day's duck-shooting, having brought down forty-nine birds. A sceptical friend said to him, "Why not make it fifty or fifty-one?" "Sir," replied the citizen of the great Republic, "do you imagine that I am going to imperil my immortal soul for the sake of one miserable duck?" I do not suggest that hon. Members are imperilling their souls by opposing this measure, but I do say that after the Shops Act has been placed upon the Statute Book it would be illogical to refuse to allow these little things to be done which are necessary to round off the work that has been done already, or to try to reject this Bill on any question of principle. The principle has been accepted, and we ought to agree to effect amendments in order to carry out a principle upon which we are all agreed. I think that this amendment of the law is eminently desirable.

Mr. SIMM: Like the Member opposite who addressed the House a few moments ago, I have had experience of shop life, and I support the Bill. I should like to congratulate the Member for London University upon the part that he has so well played this afternoon. Evidently in the course of his studies he has taken lessons from some of our friends, and he has conducted his opposition not so much to destroy this Bill as to destroy something else that might come on later. It is not surprising that we have again had it trotted out that the chief crime of this Bill is that it destroys the liberty of the individual. It is pathetic that that argument should come from one who is representing a great intellectual force in this country. There was a time, a little over 100 years ago, when women dragged tubs along the pit bottom with chains around their necks. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not true!"] Oh, yes, it is true. It happened in Northumberland and in certain parts of Scotland. I have read my history on that subject as well as the hon. Member. I do not think they are doing it to-day, but they did it in days gone by. When it was desired that this practice should cease, and, further, that boys
should not work a matter of ten, twelve, or even fifteen or sixteen hours a day in the pit, the cry went up, "You are interfering with the liberty of the individual." When children were being sent from our workhouses to be worked to death in cotton factories, and it was desired to stop it, again the cry went up, "You are interfering with the liberty of the individual." When they sent coffin ships to sea the fight had to be carried on for a long time in this House. The coffin-ship owner, of course, knew a great deal better what was good for the sailor than the sailor knew for himself, or than Samuel Plimsoll knew for him. Now we get the same old cry when we bring forward this Bill, which is not going to restrict but extend the liberty of a million and a half of His Majesty's subjects. I remember going to seek a situation in this very city of London. In the job offered me the hours were from 8 o'clock in the morning till 8 at night on three days of the week. There was a half-day's holiday on Thursday, when they closed at four, on Friday they closed at 10, and on Saturday at 12. I have lived-in in places where we were not allowed to speak a word at table—not a word was to be uttered—and where rats ran over our beds night after night. I suppose if anybody had desired to amend that it would be interfering with the liberty of the subject.
We have been told this afternoon that this restriction of liberty has gone on to such a degree that we are practically robbing the subject of all freedom altogether. It is the chief function of the Home Secretary to restrict the liberty of the individual, and therefore his name ought to be behind the Bill. He is responsible for the police forces, and without the police forces the Ten Commandments would not have much chance in this country, and therefore I hope we, will get his backing this afternoon. A word or two on the methods of the Bill itself. To begin with, will it rob a single tradesman of a single penny of his turnover in the course of the year? Not one cent. There will not be a single pennyworth less of trade done. Therefore, so far as trade is concerned, there is no need for fear as to the effects of limitation. How is it going to affect shop-assistants themselves? One of the most useful things done in this country during the past five years, was done by our military tribunals in eliminating
waste—wasted human labour, wasted commercial travellers, wasted agents of all sorts. Look round at the large shops, what do you see? A shop assistant who sells £10 worth of goods can sell that £10 worth in an hour just as well as in 7 or 8 hours, if only the customers are there. They have to waste hours behind the counters, taking down boxes and dusting them and then putting them back again, because the customers are not there. If we restricted the hours of labour in the shops of this country to five or six hours a day, there would be equally as much work done. This Bill allows trade to go on until 7 o'clock. When I was in a shop I could not get out until half-past 7, and had to be in at a reasonable hour, say, half-past 10. How much time did that allow for people who wanted to go for a bicycle ride? You are not conceding very much in saying that 7 o'clock shall be the hour of closing.
The hon. Member for the University of London made play with the fact that there are words in the Bill providing that the light shall not be kept on after the shop is closed. We know perfectly well that after shops are closed shop assistants are frequently kept in to do dusting and other kinds of work inside the establishment for which not one farthing of overtime is paid. That practice ought to be stopped, and it is in the interests of the assistants themselves that this is put into the Bill. As to the lessoning of the hours of labour, contrast the change in trade itself at the present day. In the grocery trade shop assistants can handle three times as many goods in the hour as assistants did 25 or 30 years ago. In the old days when we went for a pound of treacle we took a pot and the treacle was ladled out of a jug with a spoon. Things that go into shops now are all packed ready for handing over the counter, and therefore the amount of work that can be done by an assistant in five or six hours is in excess of what could be done in the old days when he had to pack up almost everything that came into the shop. I see no reason why this Bill should not be on the Statute Book. Everything can be said in its favour. There are in the House many medical men who desire merely to prolong this discussion, but I would remind them that probably three-quarters of shop assistants are women who in days to come may be mothers of children, and I would ask them
whether standing eight or nine hours a day behind a counter is not endangering our future generation? That is a serious factor. I hope the House will not make play with this Bill, but treat is as a serious measure affecting the liberties of a deserving body of our population, and will carry the second reading this afternoon.

Lieut.-Colonel BUCHANAN: I only desire to say a very few sentences in support of this Bill. I think all members of this House with any right feeling desire to do what they can to better the conditions of all those engaged in industry in this country, but on almost every occasion when we try to do so we find ourselves confronted by either a direct expenditure of money or curtailment of output. This Bill affects neither of these things. It deals simply with those who to my mind are a very hard-worked set of individuals engaged in industry. The life of the shop-assistant is a very harassing one, and I think we all must admit that we customers of the shops are not blameless, the fair sex being the greatest sinners in this respect. When I am in the large shops of the West End of London I often marvel how those girls manage to keep their tempers at all, and if we grant that the shop-assistants in our large shops, and in the little ones too, for that matter, are deserving of consideration, this Bill is worthy of the support of this House, more especially so on account of the great amount of female labour that is employed in shops. I do not know whether it is imagination—I do not think it is—but when one goes into different shops in London one very often finds a very different atmosphere in one shop from what one finds in another. One goes into one shop and feels that the girls employed in it are happy and contented, whereas in another shop perhaps across the street, the girls look ill cared for and overworked, and sometimes it is quite distressing to go into some of these shops with big names and to see the girls looking harassed, tired, and altogether overwrought, so that if we in this House can do anything to improve their lot, I am sure we shall have done something that we may be satisfied with. It has been stated that this Bill may cause inconvenience, but it has also been very rightly said that people will be educated to shop at the proper hours. It has always
seemed most unreasonable that the better-to-do people should shop at such unreasonable hours, and it is only a matter of education to get them to adopt more reasonable hours for their shopping. As regards those whose time is not their own, and who perhaps have to work during the day, and must do their shopping at night, we have only to turn to the local authority who know best what the local requirements are, to see that there is no hardship placed on workers in their own district. There seems to be an elasticity in this Bill which commends itself to me and should, I think, commend itself to the House. When it emerges from Committee, possibly with improvements in detail, I believe it will prove a measure which will be of great use both to the shopkeepers and shop assistants of this country.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): Perhaps it would be well if I explained to the House what the attitude of the Government is with regard to this Bill. The Government are entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill, and without pledging themselves to details, and reserving a free hand with regard to certain details when the Bill arrives at the Committee stage, with these reservations, the Government hope that this House will give a second reading to the Bill. It is no new principle. After all, it is not even adopting something which was found useful in time of war, which had been untried before the War, and adopting it now in normal peace times. The Act of 1912 was passed, of course, before the War, without any regard to the War, and this is really an amending Bill to the 1912 Act, taking advantage of the experience we have gained. I should not for a moment take up the time of the House by repeating the very cogent arguments that have been brought forward in favour of the principle involved in this Bill, and I do not think that any thing that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus) really could be called new, or anything that had not been said and not completely answered very frequently before. Therefore, I am sure he will consider it no discourtesy on my part if I say that the Government do not agree with the principles which he has laid down, which have been laid down any time for the last 50 years, since
factory legislation began, and probably will continue to be laid down when we have long ceased to take any interest in these matters.
In the meantime, there are one or two points about the Bill which will require further consideration, rather now points; and one which I am bound to say seems to me to present some danger and will require very careful consideration is the provision of giving exemption to an individual. Exempting a class, of course, one can understand, but I see great danger in giving exemption to an individual. It is very difficult to know where you are going to stop. If one man proves a certain hardship for himself and gets an exemption, his next-door neighbour will at once say, "He is making profits that I ought to be making too." That is one of the matters which we shall have to consider carefully when we come to the Committee stage. Then there is the procedure for making the orders—how far the Advisory Council will work together with the Committee, and how far it is advisable that the Committee and the Advisory Council together should be able to impose upon the authority the making of an order. Under the provisions of the Bill, as I understand it, if the Committee and the Advisory Council are agreed, the local authority must act with only an appeal to the Secretary of State. Those are matters of very considerable moment, and they are very far-reaching and will require, as I say, careful consideration; but the Bill as a whole is one which I personally have supported, as I told the Deputation last May, for many years, and the Government, I am glad to say, are in an entire accord with my own individual opinion. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. It will be amended, no doubt, in Committee, and everyone will there have every opportunity to put forward any suggestions that they have to make, but in the meantime it is a Bill of vast importance. It is a Bill which is far-reaching, in that it protects many thousands of young men and young women in this country. It is a Bill that brooks of no delay—the matter has been delayed far too long already—and therefore I ask the House to pass it in order that we may as quickly as possible get it into the Committee stage, put in into the condition which we think
is most likely to be beneficial to those whom it seeks to serve, and so we will, I hope, before this Sessions ends, put a really good statute on the Statute Book.

Sir H. CRAIK: It cannot be said that a member of the party to which I have the honour to belong is likely to listen with any want of sympathy to anything the professed object of which is to improve the lot of the worker, for one of the chief points in the shop window of the Conservative party has for many years been that we were the authors of the Factory Acts in the dark days that are gone by. The question, however, is whether this Bill is a legitimate development of the spirit of the Factory Acts, or whether it does not go too far. We must surely take the circumstances of each time and of the various trades into consideration before we come to any settled opinion of that sort. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Simm) gave us a thrilling picture of the hardships endured by the men and women who work in the mines. But we all knew that. It was those hardships, it was those disgraces to civilisation, that gave rise to the Factory Acts, but the circumstances have changed very considerably since then. We had then to rescue the down-trodden victims of industrial tyranny, we had to drag out these victims who had been crushed by the wheels of the Juggernaut car of competition. But that sort of thing has passed away. Are these people now in such a down-trodden condition that they cannot make their wishes felt? They are the victors of the field. Let them have the courage to acknowledge that. We know what occurs now with employés in any class of the wage-earning community. They make demands, there is a show of resistance, and there is a proposal for arbitration. We all know how the arbitration will end. A new bargain is made, and we know that that bargain is not likely to remain closely adhered to for more than two or three months, when a new demand is made.
In 1912, when I myself was a Member of this House, a Bill to restrict the hours of labour in shops was passed by an enormous majority, and with comparatively little opposition. That has been in operation for some seven years. The Home Secretary tells us that he has long thought that an Amendment was seriously
called for. He tells us that he himself has been wholly persuaded for many years past that the state of the law was scandalous. He thinks Amendment is necessary, and so do the Government. If the Government is in favour of a proposal that really reverses in some respects the legislation of 1912, why have they not brought it forward before now? Why have they waited for private members to bring in a Bill which they say is urgently called for? The Bill of 1912 provided for a weekly half-holiday, and the indignation, therefore, of the hon. Member who thought we wished to deny that, was absolutely wasted and unnecessary. The Bill of 1912 provided a weekly half-holiday and for certain hours of closing, but it very reasonably gave the opportunity of adopting these orders and rules and holidays to the needs of each locality and to the wants of each trade. It gave to those employed in trade a power of being consulted and of asserting themselves, and of showing how these advantages secured to employes might be secured with a minimum of disturbance to the trade. What does this Bill do? It absolutely eliminates from all consultation the members of the trades concerned. The whole power is placed in the hands of the County Council, but the County Council has not very much power. The County Council is bound to appoint the Committee, the very numbers of which are defined and prescribed. That small Committee of five persons is to act in consultation, not with the members of the trades concerned, but with a small consultative advisory committee to be selected, I suppose, in equal numbers. Who will get on that small Advisory Committee? Why, the faddists, of course, and not those who are connected closely with the trade.
This small Committee of five of the County Council and the Advisory Committee are to come together, and if they happen to agree upon any course, the County Council is bound to give effect to it. Is that giving real power to the represetatives of the community and to the representatives of the trade? What advantage would it be to make the half-holiday, not varied according to the needs of the locality or the trade, but absolutely uniform, so that the bureaucrat and the official may be able to say that every shop over the country at a given moment is closed compulsorily? Is that giving the
workers a tremendous advantage? I would like to ask the House to consider one or two of the practical difficulties. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Lieut.-Col. Buchanan) possesses a knowledge of shops which I am afraid I cannot confess to. My visits to shops are very rare. I do, occasionally, so far as my means at present permit, require to seek some article. I do it most frequently by the agency of a penny postcard. The shop which receives this penny postcard does, I fancy, an enormous amount of its work by means of correspondence. Is the shopkeeper to be forbidden to deal with such correspondence, and make up my parcel and send it off except in prescribed hours? Will it be breaking the law if he does this otherwise than during the prescribed hours? I do not know whether a shopkeeper would not tell you that these postcards he receives are rather a more profitable part of his work than having to deal with the rather exacting and dilatory customers, especially the other sex?

Mr. J. JONES: It is a good job that the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is not here.

Sir H. CRAIK: It is all very well to say we are preserving the small shopkeeper. Let us consider what the small shopkeeper is. In my early days we visited a "tuck" shop at our own convenience and influenced by our appetites, and at times, perhaps, when you would hardly know if the little shop were open or not. The old woman who kept it would emerge from the back. Her living room and shop were hardly distinguishable one from the other. Am I to tell this old lady that she must have no light in any room remotely connected with the shop, and must not have an open door? What is to happen in a case of this kind? Has official sanction to be obtained for a variation to be allowed from the hours already fixed by this universal ukase which has settled the hours for the shopkeepers all over the country? There is the practical difficulty. I think you will find that the difficulties will cause considerable friction and considerable discontent all over.
2.0 P.M.
My objection, however, is a far deeper objection. Fight as you can, I beseech my hon. colleagues of the Labour party, fight and you will have our sympathies in endeavouring to better the position of those you represent. We who are of the
middle classes, and suffer far more than any others, I believe, by being crushed between the upper and the nether millstones, as I have said before, congratulate you and have great sympathy with the labouring classes. We congratulate you, we sympathise with you. We quite understand and appreciate the motives which actuate you. But do let me beseech you, for the sake of the citizenship of England, not to surrender your virility and say that the only way you can assert your independence and your power to alter for the better the conditions of labour is by uniform regulations imposed by officials and confirmed by Act of Parliament. We of the professional classes may be accounted by some far better placed. We have one thing we prize beyond all others, and that is our liberty! Our remuneration becomes narrower and narrower. Expenses and taxation grow harsher, and the conditions of life of the professional classes are becoming more and more difficult, but we would rather have that than we would for one moment have our liberty restricted, and our work and powers of work limited and interfered with by regulations issued by officials. Are you going to put your hand upon the shoulder of a medical man who, it may be, is called out at a certain hour and say to him, "You have done your task for to-day; although called upon for your assistance, you must not go, somebody else must attend to this matter?" Are you going to put your hand upon the artist and say to him, "You may at this moment feel yourself inspired by some new idea, but your hours of labour have come to an end, stop it." Are you going to say to the author: "Lay down your pen at this moment, however much you may feel full of thought and brimming over with suggestions that come from your brain, you have done your share for to-day"? It may be that the Homo Secretary will say that these considerations which I am putting forward are old and have frequently been repeated. They are none the less true because they are old, and because they happen to be repeated Whatever their strength or truth they have to be repeated very often, for they have failed to make any impression upon the leaders of the wage-earning classes, who seem always ready to barter their freedom, and to depend upon other means
for the attainment of civilised conditions of life, not upon their own merit, independence, or the vast power which they know they can exercise by constitutional means, they must always seek for official rule and sanction, feeling that they are the end and aim of all existence. It is against that I protest. It is because I think this Amendment of a law passed only seven years ago is unnecessary, is too drastic, and too inquisitorial, that I, for one, will not follow the Home Secretary into the Lobby.

Mr. G. THORNE: Personally, I am astonished very much at the attitude of the two University Members who have just spoken against this very reasonable Measure. We all know that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and the hon. Member who preceded him, being University Members, are deeply interested in education. But education cannot be secured by the people unless they get some leisure in which to educate themselves. I am sure the hon. Gentleman must agree with us that education is not to be confined to those favoured classes of the community who happen by good fortune to have larger time at their disposal. One of the results of this Measure will undoubtedly be to give larger time, and, that being so, I should have thought that all men in the House of Commons, and especially those who are specially interested in education, would have been with us, and most anxious for the benefits we suggest will come from this Bill. Instead of looking to the men we thought we ought to look to, we have had to look for support in other directions. The hon. Member (Sir H. Craik) seems to think that all that is required in this direction can and should be got by voluntary agitation.

Sir H. CRAIK: And by the Act of 1912.

Mr. THORNE: And by that Act—that is the view the hon. Member takes. Practical experience, however, shows that the object sought cannot be secured by such methods. The hon. Gentleman says ho stands for liberty. So far as I am able to understand it, for the individual man in a shop a Bill of this kind is the only way by which he can secure that liberty. It is because he is deprived of that liberty that we are bound to have an Act of Parliament to give him a
chance, for one shopkeeper can stand in the way of all the other shopkeepers. Consequently, it is to make sure that all shall get their chance that a Bill of this kind is absolutely necessary.
From the start of this agitation the only difficulty I have personally felt, and I did feel it keenly in the first instance, was in regard to the small trader. I always felt some anxiety about "the bottom dog." I was very much troubled as to whether the tendancy of this Bill, and this direction, really deprived the small trader of the means of existence. I have many representations made to me on behalf of those concerned, and, personally, I considered them very seriously. Now, however, we have had experience, and it seems to show that the fears of the small trader have been very largely exaggerated. Indeed, what he did fear would come about has not come to pass. My own position in this matter is such that while I had strong opposition from the small trader years ago I am receiving no such opposition now. On all hands I am receiving support, and being told of the urgency of this Bill. Because I believe not only in the Bill, but urged by my own constituents to support it, I give it my very hearty support.

Mr. WIGNALL: On behalf of the Labour Party, I rise to give our most hearty support to this Bill. There is no necessity for myself or any of my colleagues to make any long speeches, or to adduce any strong arguments in support of the Bill after the declaration of the Home Secretary. My only regret, judging by recent happenings in the House is that there is no Clause to apply the Bill to this House, so that we could enjoy the same privilege we are striving to confer upon other people. The opposition after all, is very small. I am sure it requires a lot of arguments. It is a remarkable thing when you are dealing with matters that affect the working classes that the people who know least about the matter always talk the longest. In talking about this matter of the shop assistant and the small shopkeeper, it is always the hon. Member whose wife can use the telephone, or call up her car, or can send her orders through the post and get her supplies delivered, from whom we hear the old argument about interference with the
liberty of the people. What a good old cry that has been in the past! It is brought out again, but I wonder, when I hear these arguments adduced what these people are doing in Parliament at all, because every Act of Parliament that is passed in some way or another interferes with the liberty of the people. If these hon. Members have any faith in their own convictions why do they not seek to remove all legislation such as the Factory Acts which equally interfere with the liberty of the people.
But we are bound to go beyond mere sentiment, we are bound to deal with facts as they present themselves. There is one thing about this Bill which I like above all others, notwithstanding the statements which have been made by the hon. Gentleman who represents the University of London He referred a good deal to the 1912 Act. I would like to point out that the great difference between that Act and the present Bill is that the Act set up certain machinery, and it was for the traders of the district to apply to come under this operation. They had to agree among themselves and then to make application for the Act to be applied to their particular trade or calling. But this Bill goes beyond that. It spreads the net wider. It includes the whole within its folds, and instead of making application to come in, they would have to make application to get out. That makes all the difference, and the terrible picture which the hon. Gentleman drew, of the doctor not following his profession, of the author not taking up his pen to write in the moment of inspiration, and of the artist in a glorious moment of inspiration not being permitted to take up his brush, well, I can only say, if I may be allowed to use the term, it is all piffle to talk like that on a mighty question such as this. This is a working-man's question. It touches the working class more than any other class.

Sir H. CRAIK: We are all working men.

Mr. WIGNALL: We are, and we glory in the fact. We are all working men. But there are different grades of working men. There are workers with the brain and workers by the hand, and it is sometimes difficult to say in which grade we find ourselves. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the East End of London: he seemed to think that the people in the
East End never saw a shop in their lives, and never indulged in the luxury of shopping. I wondered if he had ever been in the East End. But let me say this. But if the shopkeepers, either in the East End or the West End, are to be the servants of other people, they are the very people we are trying to protect to-day. The old argument of working out your own industrial salvation so far as shopkeeping is concerned has failed in the past. We well remember the time when seating accommodation was provided under an Act of Parliament, and how some shopkeepers so arranged the work that it was impossible for the assistant to utilise the seats. I have been in a crowd dozens of times with the object of compelling some mean, flinty-hearted individual shopkeeper to close his shop. Although ninety-nine shopkeepers may have been willing to close, yet they have been unable to do so because of that one miserable specimen of humanity who wanted to take advantage of the others, and to get a little bit more profit thereby. That is the type of man legislation is required to deal with. It is not the ninety-nine good men, it is not the ninety-nine sensible men, or the ninety-nine who realise that there should be shorter working hours to enable those affected to improve themselves mentally and physically, but it is the one mean, selfish man, who is to be found everywhere, that you have to deal with. That it why I am glad that this Bill spreads the net wider, and includes all within its provisions, making it necessary for those who desire not to come under it to apply for such exemption.
Then my hon. Friend from the University drew a picture of his schoolboy days, when he went into the little tuck-shop to buy sweets and jam-tarts. Let him be consoled. That must have been a confectioner's shop, and it is not proposed to bring confectioner's shops under the provisions of this Bill. Therefore if he desires to return to the old days, if he desires to go back to the tuck-shop, he will be able to do so, this Bill will not prevent him. There is no need for a long speech in advocacy of this Bill. I am old enough to remember the old bad days of shop life and shop trading. I am old enough to remember the conditions which existed not only in London—and London I believe to be the blackest spot in the Kingdom, from this particular point of view—but all over the country. I have
in years gone by many times felt that I could even commit a crime when I have seen shop lights blazing, and the poor, fagged, weary girls dragging their limbs along at eleven or twelve o'clock at night, and when I have realised that they have a weary tramp home, and are exposed consequently to many dangers, I have felt that such a condition of things was a crime against civilisation and against humanity, and that a strong and powerful Act of Parliament was necessary to put a stop to them.
That is what this Bill attempts to do. No doubt if the measure had been brought before us six or seven years ago it would have met with greater and sterner opposition. But the War has taught us many things. It has taught us to do many things we would not have done under ordinary circumstances, and one of these is, that the people who purchase must think of those who sell, and must put aside their own indifference to the welfare of others, and adapt themselves to the altered circumstances. Hon. Members opposite do not perhaps understand home life as we understand it. Some of you do. Some of you are horny-handed sons of toil who have lived in a work-men's home, and you know that what I mean is perfectly correct—the indifference and the carelessness of all women folk. "What time is it? 8 o'clock. The shops do not close till 9; there is plenty of time." That is the curse of the whole thing. When the good housewife looks at the clock and says: "The shops close at 7, and we have got to hurry up or we shall not get what we want," away she hurries off. It has changed all the conditions of life, and the War has done that, it has also taught that the shopkeeper who closes his shop early, sells more in a shorter time. There was years ago a strong argument against it. In some large centres there has been a difficulty arising from the fact that the worker, the dock labourer for instance, was paid each day when he finishes his work, and sometimes working a bit late, he found it difficult to get home in time to make his purchases for the next day. That was a real difficulty, but it is not so much a difficulty to-day because the necessities of the War have taught them that they can hurry up and get what they want by getting a bit of a move on. That has removed a very strong argument against it, because the period we have
passed through has taught people that they can change their ways and improve their habits, and meet the necessities of life. This Bill is a plea for humanity, and if we do not take drastic steps to prevent it, we shall be drifting back to the bad old days. That cannot be allowed, and I am glad to know that the Government has decided to take up this Bill. There are many defects in it, but they can and will be remedied in Committee. That will be the time to tackle these small details, and I hope it will come back a perfect Bill, and that hon. Members who have opposed it to-day, will bless it in the name of humanity and of the shop slaves of this country.

Mr. DONALD: I am glad that the Bill applies to Ireland. I do not see how right hon. Gentlemen above the gangway can raise any objection to this whatever from the educational point of view. Clause 2 of the Act of 1912 says:
No person under the age of 16 years, in this Act referred to as a young person, shall he employed in or about a shop for a longer period than 74 hours including mealtimes in any one week.
Surely that is sufficient justification for bringing in this Bill. Furthermore, why should not working class children have the same opportunity as those in the professional sphere of life. They are going to got it under this Bill when they close down at 7. Would it not give them the opportunity of technical instruction? This was the great obstacle in my own case. I worked long hours and then went to a technical class. I have worked in a workshop all my life. I am a carpenter and shipwright, and I can speak from practical experience. I found that after working long hours, I was not able to apply my mind to the subject before me. I should like to emphasise the great necessity for shorter hours not only in the shops but all round. I do not agree that this is a question of the present day movement. It is one which should appeal to every individual throughout the country. The hours in 1901 were from 80 to 90 per week, in addition to what was called clearing up time. 84 hours for 6 days was 14 hours a day. Surely in the 20th century that state of affairs should be altered. It is evident that such long hours, especially where a shop is crowded, ill ventilated and lighted with gas, must be injurious and often ruinous to health, especially in the case of women.
This has been proved on the highest medical authority. I will quote a statement made by an eminent physician, an Irishman, Sir William MacCormack:—
There is no doubt in my mind that such long hours must contribute to the incidence of disease, especially amongst growing women who have not reached their full growth.
Such warnings cannot be safely disregarded. In my judgment, the Bill does not go far enough. We have in Ireland and other parts of the country licensed spirit grocers. There is a great injustice there in the case of a grocer who has no licence. He closes down, while a grocer with a licence carries on. I hope we shall deal with that in Committee. All over the country there is an unanimous feeling in support of the Bill, but shopkeepers are unwilling to shut their doors while their neighbours are open. All concerned deplore the long hours, but they are afraid of losing custom. Of course, some exemptions are necessary. Clause 2 mentions intoxicating liquors to be consumed on or off the premises. That is why I have mentioned the spirit grocer. Something should be dune with a view to closing down the spirit grocer at the same time as the grocers. I hope this matter will be attended to when the Bill goes to Committee. It is a great injustice to people who have no licence. When the 1912 Act was passed there was great indignation in Ireland and several urban councils refused to recognise it, and it was only after very great pressure was brought to bear upon them that the Act was applied in that country. I can remember well in 1912, when the Bill was before this House, that the Labour Members took up the position to force the Irish Urban Councils to recognise the Bill. To-day we have the support of the whole of the Labour Members. What would happen under Home Rule if some Urban Councils refused to administer the Act until compelled by this House. I hope our Labour Friends will see the wisdom of not supporting the people in Ireland who are not prepared to administer the laws carried by this House. The small shopkeepers thought that they would be ruined by the closing of the 1912 Act, but it is significant that they are amongst the strongest supporters of this Bill, which will enable them to have their half holiday so that they may go to their allotments and se-
cure to their wives and families the necessary fresh air and recreation. The shopkeepers and assistants claim that their health and happiness deserve the attention of Parliaments.

Mr. COWAN: I should not have intervened but for two facts, one being that the whole weight of University Representation in this House has so far gone against this Bill, and the other fact is that from the other side there has come two direct challenges. They seem to be under the idea that to be the representative of a university constituency is synonymous with being a reactionary. They are entirely mistaken. I would say very respectfully with regard to the University Members who have spoken, that their speeches were of the most admirable quality, closely reasoned, and no exception could be taken to them, except that they began on entirely wrong premises. The hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) made a statement to the effect that education taught people to look after themselves. That is quite true, but it is not the whole of the truth as regards education, because while education does enable people to look better after themselves than they would be able to do without it, it performs another and a higher function, and that is that it teaches people to look after others who are not so able to look after themselves. It is on that ground that I support this Bill. In doing so I have no intention of entering into the details. I know that this is in many ways a matter which draws very close to the welfare of our national life. I has been my lot for a good many years to be associated in one way or another with education, and I have had a great deal of acquaintance and experience of young people in our schools. I have seen them at school, happy looking, well and plump and chubby, the girls especially, as they should be about the age of 13 and 14, but within a few years I have seen them going to their work in the morning or coming home late in the cars jaded and tired, and not living the life that we wish the young people to live. Therefore, on that ground, as well as on the ground that by limiting the hours of labour it will give them a further opportunity of continuing their education, which is more important at this time than ever before, and in view of the fact that we have enlarged the franchise to such an extraordi-
nary extent and that we are proposing to enlarge it still further, we have a very sound and strong argument for giving every opportunity to people to continue their education and to find a profitable use for it in their leisure.
My colleague in the representation of the Scottish Universities said (Sir H. Craik), referring to the Home Secretary's statement of the Government's position, if it was so urgent that we should have a measure of this kind, why had it not been brought forward by the Government before now? I should think the answer to that is two-fold; first, that the Government cannot be doing all things at one time, and secondly, that it has been the glory of private Members of this House and of private individuals outside this House that they have brought forward measures which to begin with were received with suspicion and distrust, but which afterwards grew into the great ameliorative measures which grace our Statute Book at the present time. Believing that the object of the Bill is thoroughly sound, and wishing to remove as far as I can the rather doubtful suspicion that has been cast opon University representation, I have great pleasore in supporting the Bill.

Major HENDERSON: Although I am a believer in this Bill and I wish to support its general principles, I should like to call attention to one or two points in regard to certain sections of it which deserve reconsideration. The Mover referred to newsagents and stated that he did not think that their present position, as he has placed them in Section 2, should be altered. I do not quite agree with him. So far as my knowledge of Scotland is concerned there is a general desire on the part of a. very considerable number of newsagents that they should be placed in Section 1 together with tobacconists. I would ask the hon. Member before the Committee stage whether he could not reconsider his attitude in regard to that class of shopkeeper. In Section 2 there is the questions of perishable goods. I do not think that the Sub-section dealing with perishable goods is in as good a form as it might be, because it does not take into account trades like the milk trade or shops which sell flowers. In very hot weather shopkeepers dealing in milk might feel that unless they got rid of the milk before
closing time, or unless they were allowed to sell it for a certain period after the closing hour, it might be bad by next morning. In the 1912 Act a somewhat different provision is made in regard to the classification of perishable goods than the classification that is given in this Bill.
There are two other points requiring attention. One is the question of the small shop, particularly what I might describe as the omnibus shop, which deals in a large number of different kinds of things, under the 1912 Act these small shops are made to close, so far as any particular class of goods is concerned, when shops dealing in that particular class of goods have a half-holiday. When you take a departmental store, which deals with each class of goods in a separate department, it is easy to close a particular room or shop, but when you get a small shop with a large number of different classes of goods on the same counter, this actually leads to their not being able to sell some things on the counter, but being allowed to sell others. That is not a good arrangement, and leads to confusion so far as small shopkeepers are concerned. I represent a large number of small shopkeepers, and can say that no one is satisfied with the existing arrangement. Would it not be possible that these small shops should be made to close on a specific day each week, and that the existing restriction on the sale of a particular class of goods on a particular day might cease? It may be said that that would result in these shops having an unfair advantage over other shops. But that would not happen, because while the shop which was closed, say a tobacconist shop, would not get the advantage which the small shop was getting, it would get an advantage when the small shop was closed.
The hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) referred to certain vexatious restrictions, as he called them, in regard to shopkeepers being made to put out their lights as soon as they had served the customer. Unless I am much mistaken that particular provision occurs in the 1912 Act, and has been law for the last eight years, and it has not been found to be vexatious either to the public or the shopkeepers themselves. I am glad the Home Secretary drew attention to Section 4. That, to my mind, is the
one stumbling block in the Bill. As drafted it is extremely dangerous, because local authorities are made to appoint committees, and they are also made to request the individuals in the businesses to select an advisory council, and the advisory council and the committee sitting together have the power, if they agree in regard to closing orders, to compel the local authority to carry out those orders. If it was suggested that this House should delegate a committee of its own members to sit on a particular subject, together with a council of individuals who had no connection with this House, and further that the result of the findings of that council and committee should be binding on this House, whether the House agreed or not, I imagine that members of this House would raise strong objection, I do not see how you can deprive an elected assembly of its ultimate responsibility. The local authority is an elected assembly, and the advisory council is not elected. You cannot take from the local authority its ultimate power, because it rests on the individuals who elected it. It would be much better if the powers of the advisory council were purely advisory, and if the council was not given any executive power.
Under Section 4 no provision is made in the event of the Advisory Council and the Committee of the Local Authority disagreeing. It merely states the recommendation of each respective body shall be sent to the Local Authority. What happens then is a mystery. Whether the Local Authority can adopt the one course or the other I do not know, but as the Bill stands, if the two bodies disagree, the result is likely to be very unpleasant for all concerned. I am sorry that the name of no Scottish Member appears on the back of the Bill because this Bill affects Scotland just as much as England and Scottish Members in any case are much interested in this matter. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will consider these questions, as otherwise I am convinced the Bill will not be as useful as it might be.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The Seconder of the Motion told us of the ill repute in which D.O.H.A. stood in many parts of the country, and suggested that if this measure passed through the House it might lead to the canonisation of its supporters. After the pronouncement of the Home Secretary I do not
know whether the same fate will befall him, and that in any case thousands of shop assistants will arise to call him blessed. The hon. Member who has just spoken said that Scottish newsagents should be included in this Bill. I voice the claims of English newsagents to the same consideration. These are traders whose hours of labour start a great deal earlier than those of the average shopkeeper and that should be a reason for including them. If they were to close at eight o'clock no one would suffer serious injury, and it might save suspicion, which might attach to this House if we refuse that privilege, if we are so anxious to see our speeches reported in the evening editions of the local Press that we are disinclined to give the newsagents the protection given to other shopkeepers. I am sure that hon. Members would not desire that such suspicion should attach to any action of theirs. Eight o'clock is quite late enough for the circulation of ordinary evening newspapers, and it would be an advantage if we could take from our streets small children, who are mainly engaged, in the provinces at any rate, in selling newspapers in the street. This is a Committee point which I hope will be taken into consideration, so that the newsagents may be restored to the position which they had under the original Bill.
I would ask those who have appealed to the sacred rights of liberty to remember the equally important rights of economy, and I would point out that, under the 1912 Act as now applied by local authorities, considerable expense is involved in every application of the Act. As members know, each trade has to make a separate application to the Local Authority to be brought within the provision of the 1912 Act. Members probably hardly realise the cost of carrying out those Regulations, not where there is opposition, but where there is no opposition. In connection with the printing that has to be done and the circulation of the Orders there is an expenditure of many hundreds of pounds in any town of ordinary size, in regard to the application of any one trade wishing to be included under that Act, It has to be remembered that in each town there are a dozen or more trades. You have only to use the ordinary rules of multiplication and you will sec that by substituting
a general order, as this Bill does, you are making a tremendous economy in administration. I appeal to those who value economy to sink for the moment their tremendous belief in the sacred right of the individual to employ the shop assistants at all hours of the night, and to balance against that the economy which this Bill would make possible. It has been suggested that the Bill might apply with advantage to the House, We all agree. Might I suggest that if it could apply to some of our employés in the House and to some of those trades which are excluded from the Act, it would be a great advantage? It is all very well for us to limit the hours of labour to eight, or whatever it may be elsewhere. I think we should look at home and see that our own employés are not working ten or twelve hours, as they are now.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Although in the constituency which I have the honour to represent there is a certain amount of division of opinion, I am convinced that there is a preponderance of opinion in favour of this Bill, especially if the rights of the small traders and of the consuming public are properly safeguarded, as I believe they would be by the powers given to the local authorities under the Bill. The justification of this measure seems to me to be summed up in two words, "Health" and "Leisure." As regards health I do not think I need labour the point. We all know from our own experience how tiring it is to be standing on our feet all day—much more tiring than taking vigorous exercise—and we need not be one of the distinguished medical men who adorn this House to realise how injurious this must be, especially in the case of women. As to leisure, if I were asked what is the crying need of this age I should say it was leisure for all of us, leisure to turn round and to lead a richer and fuller life. It is leisure that makes life most worth living, and is the key that unlocks all that enables people to realise their higher and better selves. Without leisure we lead a mere vegetable, or, at the best, a mere animal existence. Hamlet asks:
What is a man,
If his chief good, and market of his time,
Be hut to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.
I am convinced that this Bill is a step in the right direction. One hon. Member referred to the case of sellers of news-
papers, and I should like to endorse the appeal made on their behalf. As has been said, they begin work much earlier than people in other shops, often at 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning. Another trade has been mentioned, that of the tobacconist. I would ask why should the tobacconist have exceptional treatment? I am a smoker myself and do not want to do anything to discourage smoking, but why should we do anything to encourage smoking, especially in these times when every restriction ought to be opposed on the consumption not only of luxuries but also on the consumption of semi-luxuries?

Major FARQUHARSON: There is one very important point which nobody seems to have touched. This is a Bill to limit the hours of labour. The limitation of the hours of labour is becoming a very serious matter for consideration in what I might call the life-history of this country. I regard the limitation of hours as a circumstance which may be fraught with far more danger to the State in course of time than the so-called extravagance of Governments. An hon. Member has pointed out the extraordinary conditions under which industry was carried on from 1820 to 1870. We know that the hours of labour then were unduly oppressive and severe. The origin of the limitation of labour was a cry of weariness and anguish from the weakened and overburdened working-class population. Almost the same thing is true to-day; the cry for limitation of the hours of labour comes from that same psychological source now. It was a cry of anguish then, it is a cry of anguish now from the weakened section of the working-class population I suggest, therefore, that on this question of the limitation of hours we must try to arrive at a sound method whereby those hours may be decided. I submit that hours should be limited, not by the re quest or the demand of any group of political parties, but that, in essence, it is a scientific question, and should be treated accordingly. That is my chief point. It is a question which should be decided by applying scientific methods. The War has revealed, by scientific inquiry, the relationship of such simple things as meals and moments of rest to production. The hours of labour of a healthy vigorous man are of the greatest
importance as a patriotic service to the State, and to seek in their case to limit the hours by some arbitrary, unreasoning, unscientific method is unthinkable. That is where I run counter to the principle of this Bill. It sets out merely a political standard for estimating something which is really a scientific question. There are still multitudes of weary, overburdened workers in this country, and for those I would impose a standard, but why impose on the healthy vigorous man the limits which are necessary for the weaklings. If a standard table is applied in the shops, there may probably be 80 per cent. of physically defective shop assistants at work now, and judging by statistics, I am quite prepared to say that, but why impose reductions on the remaining 20 per cent. who have as much joy in their work as a child has in its gambols. Work is a source of joy to many people, much more so than leisure. Leisure depends on how it is spent. A scientific standard should be set up for the weakling, but for goodness sake let the healthy, and strong and vigorous, work overtime cither in shop or factory, or at anything else.

Mr. McGUFFIN: Then he would suffer also in his health.

Major FARQUHARSON: You could arrange to prevent that by having certificates. The limitation of hours is a scientific problem and not a political problem and is perfectly capable of determination and definement to a nicety.

3.0 P.M.

Major BARNETT: I desire to support the Second Heading of this Bill, but to enter a caveat for the careful protection in Committee of the interests of the small shopkeeper. Just three and a half years ago the then Home Secretary, Mr. Herbert Samuel, introduced under D.O.R.A. his Shop Hours Order to close all shops at 7 o'clock during the week and 8 o'clock on Saturday. That was introduced in the interest of shop assistants and was strongly opposed by the small shopkeepers. Although at that time only a Member of this House ten days I had the temerity to move the Adjournment in order to prevent that Order coming into force and secured most generous assistance from all sections of the House, and especially from the Labour benches. Eventually the Home Secretary made the concession which we
asked, and fixed the hours at 8 o'clock during the week and 9 o'clock on Saturdays. That compromise has worked exceedingly well. There has not been the destruction of the interests of the small shopkeepers that was feared, and although some may have been squeezed out of business, most have found that the compromise has been a boon. The opposition three and a half years ago came mainly from three classes—tobacconists, confectioners, and newsagents. The interests of the tobacconists and confectioners are protected in this Bill. The interests of the newsagents must be looked to in Committee, because there seems to be a very strong feeling on the part of newsagents that they ought to be included. I hope, whatever may be done now, that the legitimate interests of the small shopkeepers will be protected in Committee. We are all desirous of having short hours for shop assistants, and the shortest hours consistent with political economy, but do not let us forget that you may give them those shorter hours at the expense of ruin to small shopkeepers. An hon. Member referred just now to tobacconists and asked why they should get special terms. The reason is that a large proportion of the little shopkeepers whose interests were endangered by the draft Shop Hours Order of 1916 are tobacconists and those tobacconists in the back streets would be absolutely ruined by a seven o'clock closing Order. [HON. MEMBEES: "No, No!"] I have the advantage of being in touch with between twenty and thirty thousand small shopkeepers in this country who rallied to my support three and a half years ago and I assert that without fear of contradiction. The small tobacconists—I do not refer to the big tobacconists like Salmon and Gluckstein's—the little men in the back streets whose only chance of doing business at all is in the evening, when their customers come back from work, require to have their interests protected and I am glad to see that they are protected in this Bill the Second Reading of which I have pleasure in supporting.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

DOGS' PROTECTION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill has on three occasions passed Second Reading, on two occasions without a Division, and on the other occasion by a majority of, I think, 42. I do not wish to make a long speech as to the objects of the Bill. Every Member of the House thoroughly understands what the Bill will effect. The Bill is in the form in which it left the Standing Committee last year. I see that two hon. Members have down the Motion for its rejection, which was moved last year on the Third Reading. The sense of that Motion is that science will be impeded if this Bill be carried. There is undoubtedly considerable opposition on the part of some doctors to this Bill; but the opposition of doctors is by no manner of means unanimous. I hold in my hand a letter from a very well-known doctor and a gentleman who for a considerable number of years was a Member of this House. I refer to Sir William Collins, and he wrote to me, on April 4th last year:
Dear Sir Frederick, allow me to congratulate you on the success which has thus far attended you in the progress of the Dogs Bill.
I need only say that one of the most distinguished members of the medical profession, who was a Member of this House, and who knows something about the feeling in the country in these matters, has shown that he is of the opinion that the passing of this Bill would be in the interests of everybody. Last year, on the Third Reading, it was rather suggested, if this Bill passed, that it would be quite impossible that science could be advanced. I read then, and I propose to read again, an extract from the "Lancet" of May 31st, last year. The article is headed, "Dogs as a test object," and it recommends the employment of the dog as a test object, but it goes on to say:
This is not to say that such knowledge could have been acquired in no other way.
There, from a medical journal, writing only a year, or less than a year ago, we have the statement that the reasoned Amendment down in the name of an hon. Gentleman opposite is incorrect, and that the progress of science would not be interrupted if my Bill were adopted. I
have had recently one or two other letters from medical men approving the Bill. Last year, on the Third Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus) was extremely angry because I quoted from the OFFICIAL REPORT what was said by Dr. Chapple. I am going to quote it again, because it gives the reason why several of the medical profession are opposed to my Bill. This is what Dr. Chapple said:
Even if we examine this question of cheapness, we find that the difference is not between 5s. and 7s. 6d., but between 5s. and £5. It is not a matter of saving a few shillings; it is a matter of getting animals for experimenting at a price which can be paid, as compared with a price that cannot be paid. It would cost £5 to get a suitable monkey."—[Official Reply; Vol. LXL, April nth, 1914, Col. 524.]
I venture to say that the arguments against this Bill are not sound, and that all of us, who regard the dog as one of our best friends, will do our best to save him from experiments of this kind. Under the Act of 1876, and according to the Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection, it is possible, as matters are now, for the Home Office to give a licence which will allow a painful experiment to be made upon a dog without anæsthetics, and to allow that dog to recover from that experiment if the experiment be made with anæsthetics, and to remain not under anæsthctics until the object of the experiment has been attained. That is not generally understood. It is very often stated that all this is really sentiment, because no pain under any circumstances can result. That is not the fact. We have the evidence of Dr. Pembury, in which he said, before the Royal Commission, that pain is necessary in order that the experiment may be successful. Under all these circumstances, I do appeal to the House to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. I make another appeal. I see that it is said that it would be a very good thing to test the feeling of the House. No one is more anxious to test the fooling of the House than I am. We have one hour and three-quarters; let us put the question to a Division, and sec whether I am right or wrong.

Sir WATSON CHEYNE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words,
This House declines to proceed further with a Measure which would impose an
unnecessary and most serious obstacle to medical research.
There are two points which I intend to pursue. I intend, first, to say that it is an unnecessary Measure, and, secondly, to point out the effects upon research if this Measure were carried. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the Bill having been before the House on three previous occasions. I suppose that is why he gave us no arguments in favour of the Bill on the present occasion. I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the House is not always the same House. I have never heard his arguments in favour of the Bill. I have read what he said last year, and there was not a word in support of the Bill beyond the statement that the dog was the friend of man. To-day he said nothing in support of the Bill. He has brought forward a letter which he read last year. It is pretty old. I would have got a new one by this time. He brings forward a lot of books with statements in them that have been controverted before ad nauseam. We want some real personal statement, and not the statements of other people which have been controverted. The right hon. Gentleman may not like the term, but this is really a matter of sentiment. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if limiting this Bill to dogs means that he would permit operations and experiments upon other animals.

Sir F. BANBURY: Certainly it only applies to dogs.

Sir W. CHEYNE: The right hon. Gentleman will permit other animals to be experimented upon, but says this only applies to dogs. If he permits other animals to be experimented upon, is it not because he believes that good would follow from such experiments?

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say so.

Sir W. CHEYNE: It is a matter of humanity.

Sir F. BANBURY: I was dealing with the Bill which is before the House. I am not dealing with a Bill which is not before the House. When a Bill is before the House dealing with other animals then we will discuss it.

Sir W. CHEYNE: I think I am perfectly justified in making that point. Now I go to another point which is, to ask
the reason why this is limited to the dog. What does that mean? It is really class legislation of the worst kind. You will except dogs because you are a lover of dogs, as we all are, but other people will say that they are lovers of other animals. They may say: "Why is there not a Bill to except horses?" There are other people who are lovers of cats, and who would except cats. Some time ago a lady came into my consulting room and sat down and placed a little box on the table. She said: "I hope you will not be offended with what I am going to ask of you," and she opened the box and produced a dormouse. She said that her little pet had broken its log and she would like me to deal with it. Let us see what this Bill moans. The moment this Bill is passed it lets in the whole question of experiments on other animals, and yet the right hon. Gentleman does not wish in this case to exclude other animals from experimentation. Another point is to ask whether this Bill will really limit the experiments very much in practice. If I read it rightly it is to prevent any experiments that are not calculated to cause pain or disease to any dog. So that it is to limit, not all experiments, but only experiments which cause pain or disease Now, on that point, it is the fact that of the animal experiments, the experiments on dogs form a very small proportion indeed. I have the returns so far as I could get them some time ago for the last year for which they were available and of the number of animals experimented upon dogs form a very small number indeed. The total number of experiments performed during the year was 88,000, of which more than 84,000 were inoculation experiments. None of these 84,000 were upon dogs. So that there were about 3,600 other experiments, and of these only a small number were on dogs. There is a difficulty in getting the exact proportion of dogs because the certificates which were employed included cats. The numbers, including cats and dogs together, were 831 out of 88,000, and according to the statements made in these returns the larger number of these were cats. Out of the millions of dogs in this country something like four or five hundred dogs at the outside were dealt with.
Looking at the sort of experiments that are performed, which I will do in detail presently, it seems to me that we are a
little out of proportion when we are taking this Bill year after year for the sake of the number of dogs, which is so very small in proportion to the animals experimented upon. Why is it necessary to deal with dogs? That has been explained over and over again, but still it is necessary once more to state some of the reasons why the dog is experimented upon. The dog of all animals is the one whose physiological processes approach man's more nearly than those of other animals. Other animals are carnivorous, but the dog oats the same food as man, and his digestive processes are practically the same as man's. In these respects, such as the disturbing effect on him, the dog is almost the same as the man. One argument against experiments on animals is that you may get one result in an animal, but that it is not applicable to man. This falls to the ground in the case of the dog, and is one of the chief reasons why the dog is used, because physiologically its processes are practically the same as those of man. The dog lives in the same atmosphere as man, and he takes exercise practically in the same circumstances as man. His mode of life and many of his other processes correspond very closely with those of man. So much so that it is said that the dog is the friend of man.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Is that a reason why man should cut him up?

Sir W. CHEYNE: I am showing why the dog should be selected in preference to any other animal. It is because he is similar in many ways to man, he suffers the same fear and pain, and therefore we can avoid some of the similar experiments upon man. Another reason is that the dog is not easily handled. Everyone knows how fear and pain affect the whole position of the body. So that when experiments are being made the body should not be disturbed by fear and pain. Now that is most desirable. The dog is not a valiant animal, and if you make an experiment upon him you must have an auæsthetic to do it which would not be necessary in the case of some other animals. I was showing that the number of experiments is very minute. There must therefore be a careful selection of the subjects. Certain experiments would give no definite result because they were performed upon an animal whose processes did not correspond with those of
man, especially because all men are not valiant and you would be bound to have the effects of fear. That is the chief reason. The question of cost has been referred to, but I should regard that from quite the opposite point of view to that which has been put forward. Investigators are for the most part very poor men, and a dog is not cheaper than other animals, but dearer. The chief reason why the dog is used is that if you wish to do an experiment you select the animal which is most suitable for giving a result, and an animal that you can handle easily, and in a certain number of cases the dog is practically the only animal that you will get any result from. A statement was made just now implying that dogs are used indiscriminately—that dogs are used for experiments because they are handy, but that is not the fact. An experimenter does not want to waste either his time, his money or his energy in experiments that will not produce a result, and he chooses the animal which will suit him best.

Major C. LOWTHER: Is that to save trouble?

Sir W. CHEYNE: We want to get results. It is the result that is wanted. People do not experiment for fun. They do not do a thing just because it is funny and they want to do it; they do it for a certain definite reason. The performance of the experiment is led up to by hard work night and day for weeks before the experiment is undertaken. The popular idea seems to be that you see a dog and cut him open to see what he looks like inside. As a matter of fact, you have thought long over what you are going to do and how best to find out what it is you desire to know. Everything has been thoroughly thought out for weeks before you do the experiment, and you choose the animal which is most likely to show a result from the experiment. Let me tell you the sort of experiments for which the dog is necessary and useful. They are partly experiments of a physiological character and partly experiments connected with surgical work. I see one gentleman smiling at the idea of physiological experiments. I know that people in this utilitarian age want an immediate result from things. If an experiment is undertaken they want to see a result in the cure of somebody
or of some dire disease, but that is hardly obtainable. Physiology is the basis of all medical science. If you have a machine and are going to use it, what is the first thing you do? If it is a motor-car you do not get into it and start off along the road. You learn what its component parts are. You are instructed in the structure of the machine. It is the same with medical students. They are first taught anatomy. When you have learned the structure of the machine the next thing to study is the working of it—how does it start—what is the motive power; in a motor-car, where do the explosions occur, what do they do, what gives the good explosion, and what gives the bad one; and so you get at the physiology of the thing. It is not until you have learned the structure and the action of the machine that you can begin to use it or to rectify any fault. Physiology is the basis of the whole structure of medicine, the foundation and the walls on which medical science is erected. If these foundations are imperfect the edifice will crumble to pieces just as when the walls are formed of good material and there are sound foundations the edifice will be substantial. There is nothing more important in the study of medical and health matters than to have a foundation based on carefully observed facts, facts observed in such a way that there can be no doubt about their accuracy. The animal that has contributed more than any other animal to the establishment of a sound foundation for medical science and the physiology of medical science is the dog, for the reason that the dog's vital processes more nearly resemble man's than those of any other animal. The dog is also used for surgical experiments because he is easily handled, and, again, his wounds heal. In the course of time a great deal of surgery has been built up on experiments on dogs. The surgery of the brain has been built up on experiments on dogs, and a great deal of our present knowledge on the chest is the result of experiments on dogs; it could not have been got in any other way, apart from experiments on man. I am not going to bore the House by telling them of all the different discoveries that have been made with experiments on dogs, but I will go on now to the real point of this measure, which is to prevent the occurrence of pain in experiments. The Bill only refers to
painful experiments. You may do experiments if they do not cause pain, and only require a licence if they do cause pain. On this point I say that this Bill is unnecessary, because the great bulk of the work done on dogs does not cause pain. In the first place there are a great many feeding experiments. All these experiments in feeding are included in the returns. You can give your dog margarine or lard, or if it is a favourite dog, you can give it butter; but if you want to find out whether margarine or butter is the best food you have got to get a licence in order to do so. A large number of the experiments on dogs are feeding experiments. I know the supporters of the Bill say they do not object to feeding experiments, but the effect of the Bill would be to prevent feeding experiments. A great many hon. Members have themselves had pain after a City dinner, and who is to know whether or not a dog has pain after eating certain foods? The words of the Bill in this connection are "an experiment calculated to give pain," but I hope before the right hon. Gentleman brings the Bill forward next year he will try and find some other expression than that. It brings to mind a picture of a man sitting down at a desk and calculating whether his experiment will give pain or not, or how much pain it will give, "Calculated" is a wrong word to use, and if you said "very likely to cause pain" I think it would be better. "Calculated" is not a nice word.
Now I will come to the second set of experiments, which are probably the largest in number, and those are experiments performed under an anæsthetic where the animal is killed before it wakes. That is the most frequent physiological experiment on the dog, but whore is the pain? They are put under an anæsthetic, and instead of simply pushing it to the extent of killing them straight out, they are kept alive under the anæsthetic, and observations are made of various kinds, and recorded, and then, when the time comes either that you have made out all you want to make out or that you find that the animal is not responding to stimulation, you increase the dose of the anæsthetic, and the dog dies. I cannot believe that that is an experiment calculated to cause any pain, and yet those are the majority of the experiments These experiments have given us an
enormous amount of information. The experiments which have shown what is called the localisation of functions in the brain were performed under an anæsthetic, and they have enabled us to map out the brain is a most wonderful manner. If you expose certain parts of the brain and stimulate the animal under the anæesthetic, you get certain movements of certain muscles, and you can thus map out, in cases of disease or injury, the part of the brain which is the seat of the trouble by the action of the muscles affected. The great mass of the knowledge which has enabled charts to be drawn of the brain has been obtained from these experiments on dogs under an anæsthetic. Thirdly, we have the experiments where the animal is allowed to wake up after the experiment. It is kept alive, according to the Act, unless there is severe pain.

Sir J. BUTCHER: There is nothing in the Act saying that.

Sir W. CHEYNE: Oh, yes there is. It is not perhaps in your Act, but I know it is in the Act, because I read it this morning. In regard to this third kind of experiment, they are chiefly surgical experiments on dogs. I am not going to say that some experiments on dogs do not cause pain, but I have spent a long time thinking over this question, and I have come to the conclusion that the experiments on dogs which cause real pain afterwards must be very few indeed. I am quite certain of that. About the beginning of last century experiments on animals really began to be made. In those days the animals must have suffered an immense amount of pain. No one can deny it, and there were very few men employed in vivisection in those days. Very few could really face the work. But there was a very considerable amount of work done, and work of great value. I believe it is a sort of remembrance of those old days which makes people still think that animals are put in pain. Of course, it is also true that anæsthetics were not applied to experiments on animals until well after they were discovered, because it was very difficult on the one hand, to put an animal under an anæsthetic and keep it under an anæsthetic, and on the other hand to keep it alive under the anæsthetic. It took a considerable time to find out the way to do that. It has been
found out for 30 years, at any rate, and there is no reason to suppose that animals under these anæsthetics suffer. A second thing, I think, contributes to the general idea that there is pain, and that is the pictures showing a frame with an animal stretched out, and tied down in various positions. But it must be remembered that that is not done until theanimal is put under the anæsthetic, just as any person is fastened in extraordinary positions for a surgical operation, the fact being that if you are going to perform a delicate operation you must have everything fixed, you cannot have a person or a dog rolling about on a table. It can be easily understood that you want an elaborate arrangement to fix an animal the shape of a dog.
Is this Act necessary for experiments on dogs? It is not necessary in order to save pain. If something is still wanted to be done, let it be done in the direction of strengthening the former Act. If you abolish experiments on dogs you are venturing on a very serious matter. The truth is that a lot of people do not believe the former Act was properly carried out. They have an idea that there is a hidden laboratory in which all sorts of cruelties go on, without, of course, the knowledge and sanction of the Home Office. It is really going too far to say that people are going into dark corners to torture dogs. But if you believe in strengthening that Act by appointing more inspectors, there is no objection. You can have an inspector if you like in every laboratory to see what is going on. If you choose to do that, no one will make the slightest objection. I will support you. That is a totally different thing from abolishing experiments on animals because you say there is pain. I want to bring forward another point. I suppose there are a good many Members here who have made the acquaintance of a dressing station, but, if so, they were not able to tell what happened. Towards the end of the War this is the sort of thing that happened. Cases would be brought during a battle into the receiving room and then dealt with according to the nature of the case. Some cases had to be operated upon there and then. You could have seen men hardly breathing put upon the table; you could not even take off their clothes to perform an operation. Then you would see a chair brought to the side of the table, and a doctor,
nurse or attendant sit down in the chair, and you would see blood drawn from the doctor, nurse, or attendant, and transfused into the patient. By and by, the patient would be restored sufficiently to allow the operation being done. These are the people who are said to be cruel.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Edwin Cornwall): The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Bill

Sir W. CHEYNE: I was going to say, that these experiments enabling the transfusion of blood were entirely the result of experiments on dogs. I know in this House one ought to begin by saying what one is going to end up with. I was taking the opportunity of saying that that is not the work of cruel people. When I was a student years ago in Edinburgh, transfusion of blood was discussed, but it was accounted too dangerous, and the matter continued in that state for years. Just before the War it was taken in hand in America by some of the best physicians, and the results were brought over to Europe.
The last point I want to make—and I will try to keep in order—is as to the reason why doctors in England and all over the world, with the exception of a few friends of the right hon. Baronet—doctors and scientific men who have to do with matters of this sort—oppose this Bill with all their might. Why is it? We can dismiss the question of cruelty. A suggestion of that sort is too absurd for words. Nobody, however, does suggest it; neither the right hon. Baronet or anyone else. There must be some reason why opinion is so positive that it would be contrary to the interests of the human race if this Bill were passed The reason is two-fold. First, we realise our ignorance that we do not know nearly enough to carry our job through successfully. That being the case—

Sir F. BANBURY: Has the hon. Gentleman read the address of the President of the Section of State Medicine, Dr. Wilson, at the annual meeting of the British Medical Association, when he spoke against vivisection, and protested against his profession misleading the public as to the cruelties perpetrated on the animals?

Sir W. CHEYNE: What is the date of that?

Sir F. BANBURY: 1899.

4.0. P.M.

Sir W. CHEYNE: That is a good while ago. We cannot afford, with our feeling of want of knowledge, to allow any means of knowledge to slip past. We believe most firmly that to exclude even these few experiments on dogs would very, very seriously hamper the progress of medicine. The second reason why we oppose is that not only do we recognise our ignorance, but we also recognise our responsibility. Only last week, an eminent authority, secretary of a medical service, delivered an address in relation to recent research. He made the statement that more people had died from influenza since the Armistice, than were killed during the whole of the Great War, when shells, bullets, poison-gas, and so on, were flying about. He also told us that every hour of the day and night, month in and month out, there was an appalling death rate from cancer and tuberculosis.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Is the hon. Gentleman dealing with dogs now?

Sir W. CHEYNE: I was endeavouring to bring in the necessity for the action we are taking by my illustration. Every possible means we can adopt to increase our knowledge it is our duty to adopt. As a matter of fact, as regards cancer, it is being investigated on dogs, and I believe it is through investigations on dogs that the solution will arrive. I have to do with the Cancer Research Committee, and I would probably have mentioned dogs in that connection. We have this appalling ignorance. That is why we do not want anything done to interfere with the growth of knowledge. I would remind the House of its great responsibility in this matter. The medical profession have human life in their hands. I do not think the public realise what that responsibility is. I trust it is in the minds of Members of this House now, for it is they who are taking the responsibility; it is their judgment that is at stake if this Bill is passed

Captain LOSEBY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so from a lay point of view. I do so, not because I love dogs' less, but because I love my own kind more. I am quite sure that every ore of us realises and respects the motives which prompted
the hon. Baronet to bring in this Bill What, however, we do find difficult to understand is the motives that prompt them in this particular case and their attitude generally towards the animal world. In an examination of this Bill, and in order to define that attitude, it is necessary to go into the elementary facts and motives which ordinarily prompt us in our action. If the right hon. Baronet and those who support him were prepared to adopt the moral attitude that under no circumstances and under no conditions, and for no purpose whatever, should human beings be entitled to make use of animals to their prejudice for the selfish purposes of humanity, then they would stand on sound, strong moral grounds; but in view of the motives which ordinarily prompt us in our attitude toward the animal world, I find it utterly impossible to understand how they can differentiate in these particular cases, and how they can tell us it is not justifiable even to inflict suffering for the alleviation of humanity while at the same time they do not object to the infliction of suffering for sport and for the gratification of our senses.
I would like to briefly to refer to some of the things which we do and allow in the interests of sport alone, and I propose to argue my ease on those grounds. Take the cases of hunting men, of shooting men and of the bon viveur. I do not hoar a cry of indignation arising throughout the land and I do not hear hon. Gentlemen generally who support this Bill denounce the practice of hunting a little animal with a pack of dogs which tear it to pieces when it is exhausted and worn. The sport of coursing is cruel, and the kill which follows I think, if one could analyse the motives of those who witnessed it, is simply the product of a spirit of barbarity. Then there are beautiful birds which are shot. Those birds appeal to me mentally infinitely more than does the dog, but because the right hon. Baronet chooses to pick out one particular class of animal for which ho has a special liking, why should he say "You must not experiment on that particular type of animal which I love and admire," even for the purposes of alleviating human suffering. My third type of sportsman is the bon viveur. The barbarity we sportsmen do in that line! We put the lobster into boiling water merely to make it look better, we
crucify the calf, and we cut the throat of the pig. [Interruption.] I have always suspected my hon. Friend who interrupts of being a whippet fancier. I do not know whether he is. You have your rag partly because it assists you in that peculiarly vicious form of sport.
I come back to the dog. I am told there are some thousands of dogs in London annually condemned to die. The right hon. Baronet does not protest against that. The vast majority of the medical world come to us and say, "This dog will be of inestimable value to us in the course of our work of protecting humanity. We will undertake that the operations upon them shall be painless, and we will demonstrate to you in a manner that cannot be denied that the service to science and to humanity will be incalculable. What can we then do, we barbarians, we hunting men, we whippet fanciers, we bon viveurs, in view of our practice? We will continue all our barbarities, but this particular type of barbarity we will wash right out. Is there anything in vivisection which is inherently vicious which appals us? I myself have been vivisected. I have been experimented on. It was only a tiny matter. I was one of the first who was passed in France, and I was picked out in order that blood might be taken from me that doctors might know what the particular gas was. I thought it was a great honour. One was very proud of that. This is the test I put to myself, and I think hon. Members might rightly put to themselves. If any hon. Member knew that he had to die to-morrow and he was told by the doctor that if he allowed vivisection to be performed upon himself he would be performing an inestimable service to humanity, how many hon. Members would refuse?

Sir F. BANBURY: The Bill does not deal with the vivisection of human beings, but with the vivisection of dogs.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Bill is of a limited scope. It refers to the prohibition of experiments upon dogs, and illustrations must relate to that.

Captain LOSEBY: The point I was making was that if I could demonstrate to hon. Members that if they themselves were put in the position they would consent to vivisection upon themselves, then
how much more does that apply to the case of dogs. I am told as a layman, and I must accept it, that in regard to the heart, the digestion and the deficiency diseases, the organs are such that they cannot be replaced for that particular type of experiment. I am not prepared to argue with the medical profession, composed as it is of a body of hon. Gentlemen who have devoted their lives to that particular type of science, because of an inborn desire to benefit humanity, and I am quite unable to believe that they are barbarians capable of the type of the barbarity that has been suggested, and that they are misinforming us. If the position were not such that a large number of dogs must die every year, and in many cases those dogs have been cruelly treated during their lives, and unless I was satisfied that vivisection would be more or less painless, and that an incalculable service to humanity is rendered by vivisection, I would vote for this Bill without a moment's hesitation. I am convinced that we cannot dispense with this practice without humanity at large suffering, and that we should not thereby confer any benefit even upon dogs.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am not an anti-vivisectionist, and I appreciate fully the great services which have been rendered by men who, by their medical and physiological research, have done so much to save human life, and to mitigate and prevent human suffering. If one had ever any reason to have these facts recalled to one's mind it would be during the recent War, where medical and surgical research have been the means of saving the lives of thousands of our gallant men and of enabling others to get over the effects of their sufferings in the War. But while fully recognising that, I earnestly trust that the House will read this Bill a second time. As the right hon. Member for the City of London said, it is not proved that experiments on dogs are necessary for the purpose of physiological research, and if not no one would desire to see dogs vivisected. There is a great difference of opinion among medical men on this point. There is no finding in the Report of the Royal Commission, consisting as it did of the greatest experts, who heard all the evidence available on the subject, that dogs are necessary for the purpose of physiological research.

Sir P. MAGNUS: What was the date of the Report?

Sir J. BUTCHER: 1912. Then my right hon. Friend read a passage, from a paper which I am sure the hon Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir Watson Cheyne) will value, "The Lancet," which puts what might possibly be called the considered view of some of the doctors who oppose this Bill, and said that it did not follow that, because some experiments on dogs had valuable results, those results would not have been obtained in some other way. Therefore, there is no proof to satisfy anybody that these experiments are necessary. When I heard my hon. Friend, for whom I have the deepest respect, give some of the reasons why dogs should be vivisected, I was more than surprised. I took down some of these reasons. He said:
The dog is the friend of man. The dog is not afraid of man. The dog is easily handled.
Are we to conclude from this that, because he is your friend, because he trusts you and expects to be properly and humanely-treated, therefore you should cut him up! I should have thought that those reasons—and the facts are as stated—were the strongest possible reasons for preventing the dog from being vivisected, especially as can be shown the vivisection is really unnecessary in the interests of medical research.
The main point that appeals to my mind is this, ought this House or ought it not to sanction painful experiments on dogs? My hon. Friend, I rather gather, is against painful experiments. I think he holds the view that painful experiments are not necessary, and that under the present law they do not occur. At any rate, that is the view of a very eminent man, with whom, I am sure, my hon. Friend will agree—Professor Starling—who is an ardent advocate of the vivisection of dogs. His view is that an experiment which causes pain to a dog, is of no value—

Sir W. CHEYNE: Hear, hear!

Sir J. BUTCHER: And that in point of fact, according to the existing practice, no such painful experiments are possible. If I can persuade my hon. Friend that, according to the existing law and practice, painful experiments are possible, then I shall obtain his support. Professor Starling says:
If the object of the experiment requires that a dog should be allowed to survive, the
dog must be killed at once under an anæsthetic should pain supervene after the operation.
Professor Starling, like many other men, perhaps, is not as great an authority on the existing law and practice of the Home Office as others are. As a matter of fact that statement is absolutely contrary to the facts. In the first place there is not one syllable in the Act of 1876 which says that if pain supervenes after an experiment on a dog, the dog is to be put to death. On the contrary the Act provides that where certain certificates are given the dog may be kept alive after the experiment if it is necessary for the purpose of not frustrating the experiment. Therefore, according to the law the dog may be kept alive after the operation under an anaesthetic, although it is in the severest pain. I may be told that the law is modified in its operation by the regulations of the Home Office. In the regulations of the Home Office it is one of the conditions attached to the licence that the dog may be kept alive after the operation, unless severe pain, which is likely to last, supervenes. It is, therefore, only in cases of severe and lasting pain supervening that the dog is killed. There is no question about that.
I have here the whole passage from the Report which was issued in 1912, and it says exactly the same thing. They go into the conditions attached by the Home Office to the licence, and say that from these it would be seen that the animal need not be killed after the operation if in considerable pain and pain likely to endure. Thus official sanction is given to keeping the animal alive for an indefinite time, though suffering considerable pain, at the sole discretion of the operator. That is the finding of the Royal Commission upon the practice of the Home Office in this particular respect, and it has not varied since the year 1912, because I made it my business to go to the Home Office last year and to get all the forms. From these it appeared that the licence allowed the dog to be kept alive after the operation unless severe and permanent pain supervened. That is a state of things that no one would desire. Even my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment agrees to two things—that pain ought not to take place, and that pain is not necessary to be inflicted. Therefore, I say that when he finds that by the practice of the Home
Office licences are issued which allow pain to be inflicted, and allow a dog to be kept alive after operation unless severe and permanent pain supervenes, he ought to support this Bill.

Sir W. CHEYNE: I think my hon. Friend is pinning me down a little too far. I said that pain would disorganise many experiments, that it would lead to false results. The point I made was that in the majority of cases pain would be prevented. I did not propose any experiment that would cause severe pain.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am very much obliged for that interruption. The hon. Gentleman says that where pain does supervene it is most likely to lead to a false result. It leads him astray. The supervening of pain is really likely to cause the operation to be unsuccessful.

Sir P. MAGNUS: What my hon. Friend stated was exactly what Professor Starling said, namely, that a physiological experiment which is painful is thereby a bad one.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am delighted to hear that statement, as it is exactly my point and also to have my argument reinforced from opponents of the Bill. Therefore, you have the fact where there is pain it is likely to lead to a bad result, and secondly, by the existing practice of the Home Office, dogs are allowed to be subjected to operations which cause pain. Those I submit form conclusive arguments for supporting this Bill which is to prevent painful experiments. I have not the smallest objection to a dog being put under an anæsthetic and being operated on if it is absotluely necessary for physiological research, provided the dog is not revived after the anæsthetic. If that is not made clear in the Bill, speaking for myself, I should be prepared to see that it is. The Bill is aimed at stopping painful experiments, and above all to stop experiments is cases where the dog is not killed after the operation. If my hon. Friend who Seconded the Amendment brings in a Bill to stop any type of cruelty, and can make out a case for it, I shall support him, but I am not sure that it would be in Order on this occasion to follow him in his remarks on that point. We are only dealing with one specific question, whether we ought or ought not to forbid painful experiments on dogs. I say that, both from
the point of view of physiological research and humanity, we ought to see that dogs are not caused pain, and to give this Bill a Second Beading.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE - BRABAZON: I do wish we could approach this question with the absence of passion, but it seems quite impossible, as everybody is either very much on one side or the other. I am entirely in favour of vivisection, and in favour of this Bill. I have listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir W. Cheyne), in which he told us that very few dogs were required to be operated on and that it was essential to have dogs. He went on to deal with the difficulties in physiological experiments. I do not mean to enter into any detailed argument with him on that point, but while the medical profession may be extraordinarily knowledgeable on physiology, they are extraordinarily ignorant on psychology. It is because the dog is so trusting that the whole opposition to vivisection comes about. Therefore, if you could eliminate vivisection on dogs you would cut the heart out of all the anti-vivisection movement in tins country. I know that the medical profession is probably the most reactionary Trade Union that exists, but they are to-day opposing a measure which is bound to come. People will look upon this question from the moral point of view, and they will eventually—I do not know how long it will take—stop vivisection, and, from the medical point of view, I would like to see them appreciate the point that, if they allowed this Bill to go through, and consequently stopped vivisection on dogs, there would then be no opposition in this country to vivisection upon other animals.

Captain ELLIOT: My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) and the hon. and learned Gentleman below me (Sir J. Butcher) seem to count on the fact that this is a Bill for the prevention of painful experiments upon dogs. The argument of my hon. and learned Friend entirely hinged upon that fact. I suppose that he has read his own Bill, and that he listened to the arguments that took place in Committee last year. The chief thing that his own Bill says is that
It shall be unlawful to perform any experiment of a nature calculated to give pain or disease to any dog for any purpose
whatsoever, either with or without anæsthetics, and no person or place shall be licensed for the purpose of performing any such experiments.
It is all very well for him to say that he has no objection to experiments being conducted with dogs under anæsthetics, but when we get into Committee it is entirely a different story. Last year he and his friends fought tooth and nail and bitterly opposed an Amendment brought forward by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir W. Cheyne) to leave out the words "either with or," and to make it illegal to perform experiments without anæsthetics, and insisted upon the very letter of the Bill. It is not a Bill to prevent painful experiments upon dogs at all; it is not a Bill to prevent giving pain to dogs; it is simply a pettifogging Bill to obstruct as far as possible the progress of medical science. There are millions of painful experiments upon dogs conducted every year. Does the hon. and learned Member object to them? There is not a word of objection raised. There are some 4,000,000 dogs in this country, and they are performed upon by all sorts of people for all sorts of purposes without any licence from the Homo Secretary. The law now says: "Do you hope to obtain any information for the benefit of suffering humanity from this experiment? If you do, you must have a certificate signed by everybody from the Home Secretary downwards. If you do not hope to learn anything, if you do it for brutality or to increase the selling value of the dog by cutting off its tail or altering the shape of its ears, you can do it." Nobody objects to that, not even the right hon Gentleman or the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir F. BANBURY: Any bench of magistrates would convict anyone guilty of cruelty if the operation were improperly performed.

Captain ELLIOT: If it were improperly performed! Are we asked to believe that any bench of magistrates would convict a dog fancier for docking a dog's tail? It is preposterous to bring forward arguments of that kind. We know that these experiments are conducted by the million every year. There was no protest heard from the Gentlemen who are now supporting this Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is not true.

Captain ELLIOT: I know the right hon. Baronet has conducted a lifelong agitation in favour of this Bill, but he has not been so successful as he has been in his other agitations. I have heard of his successful opposition to many other reforms. I saw him in his place to-day, and I wondered How he sat still while the Shops Bill was being discussed. I have read of his speeches on previous occasions against Shops Bills, and that his agitation met with considerable success. His agitation against experiments-by dog fanciers and on behalf of the suffering dogs in those cases, I have not heard of. I know there was a Bill brought in and passed into law last year for the benefit of animals, to prevent many operations by veterinary surgeons which were repugnant to us all, such as cutting out of an eyeball without anæsthetics. This Bill was backed by the vivisectionists in this House, but did not interest the right hon. Baronet. These gentlemen were interested in research which might do some good for suffering humanity.
This is a Bill, we are told, to prevent the vivisection of dogs. Very much the same Bill was before the House a year ago. In rejecting that Bill the House performed a great service to humanity. If the research which began immediately after the passing of the previous Bill had been stopped there would have been a great check to valuable research. Professor Lewis, of London University, who did so much work during the War, resumed his labours last March and already there have been most fruitful results. It is difficult to make these technical matters plain to a non-technical audience. One reason why the dog is pre-eminently suitable is that he is the only animal on which the experiments can be carried out which could not be performed on a cat, a rat, or a guinea-pig. They are too small. They cannot be carried out on sheep and other animals because their hearts are loaded with fat. For ten years the work has been going on, and the heart of the dog has been mapped out. There has been microscopic study, and the heart charted as a general about to attack charted the trenches opposite in Flanders. I have diagrams here which I should be glad to show hon. Members afterwards. Already something has been learned about the causes of heart disease. There is one form of palpitation of the heart from which some 20,000 pensioners from the
Army alone are suffering. We have made great progress in that.

Mr. W. THORNE: Have you a remedy for it?

Captain ELLIOT: I shall be very much pleased to show the hon. Member the results of what we have found out. I have here diagrams showing the heart beat in man and the heart in the dog, and the diagrams are practically identical. "We have got another diagram showing disease of the heart in man and disease in the heart in dogs. These experiments were carried out on dogs under complete anæsthesia, the dogs were killed before they recovered from the experiment, and these experiments would have been completely stopped by the passage of the Bill which was before the House last March. These experiments prove practically and conclusively the cause of heart disease. The heart-beat starts by an impulse beginning at the top of the heart and passes down in a certain sort of current throughout the muscle. In heart disease, the wires are faulty, the circuit is bad, and instead of passing straight down through the heart, as it should do, the impulse is broken up and the heart goes into what is known as fibrilation. Each muscle fibre begins twitching independently, and in some cases one single muscle impulse gets loose, so to speak, and courses round and round the heart. Those things have been found out very largely within the last 12 months, and very largely because of the rejection of the Bill by the House last March. When we have really definite results like that, this House would be taking a step of the gravest responsibility to stop experiments—to wash out the result of nine years of experiment, scrap it, and throw it into the wastepaper basket and cause another start to be made. My hon. Friend the Member for the Air Force (Colonel Moore-Brabazon) says that if we were to use some other animal for vivisection we should stop the agitation. But we are prepared to fight the agitation against vivisection because of our enormous belief in the good that is resulting from our work to the human race. It is no argument that we should be less vilified and more comfortable and happy in every way if we stopped. No doubt, but then we have to go round the wards
of the hospitals. Let the hon. Baronet (Sir John Butcher) go across the water to St. Thomas's Hospital and ask the doctor to take him round the wards there and point out to him all the wretched, blue-faced people sitting up in bed, propped up with pillows, gasping for breath, afraid to lie down, their legs all swollen with dropsy. Would he say to them: "Here, I am going to stop these experiments with which it is hoped to cure you, but never mind, nine years hence the doctors may be nearly as forward as they are to-day." I do not believe there is a man in this House who would take the responsibility of saying that to those wretched men and women, yes, and children too, lying in those hospitals suffering from heart disease. Already we have opened the way to finding out what heart disease is, and that will give us a direct lead as to what to do for it. In the last 12 months we have passed very far along the road to discovering what heart disease really is. It is due to the break-up of this impulse passing through the heart from the top to the bottom. That gives us a direct line as to how to cure it. We suggest that the way we can cure it best is this: if the circuit is faulty, improve the circuit, and by altering the chemical composition of the blood by means of certain chemical salts we hope to be able to improve it, and to set this fluttering, useless, palpitating heart beating strongly and steadily and regularly, pumping the blood through the system again and restoring the man to be a useful member of society, instead of a helpless gasping wreck, propped up in bed, afraid even to lie down and to go to sleep for a few minutes, as is the case just now.
When we have these results, and nobody denies that we have got those results in the last 12 months, for the right hon. Gentleman to ask the House to pass a Bill stopping this work, is taking a most grave and terrible responsibility. I think it is not denied in law that the onus of a change in the law lies with those seeking to change it. I think the supporters of this Bill have not made out sufficiently strongly the case for those seeking to change the law. In regard to this impulse that passes round the heart, it is hoped that by an electric shock you can break it up and stop the palpitation, and set the heart
beating again. That is only possible because of the researches and the work which have been done on the dog, and very largely in this City of London, within a radius of a mile or so of this House, by an eminent British scientist who, in any other country, would be helped in his work and not hindered by any possible action of the Legislature. Suppose we had a clock-maker, and we said to him: "You are not to look inside this clock, but you can listen to it, and look at the face, and pour oil into this hole or that," it would be a very helpless position to put him in; but suppose there were another clock, rather like it, that he had a chance of opening and looking inside to see how it worked and to see what corresponded in it with the disorders in the beat of the clock he had to repair, and you told him he was not to look inside that clock at all, you would be putting him in a hopeless position, and in the words of this Amendment you would be imposing an unnecessary and very serious impediment in the path of medical research.
There is one other point I would like to make. It is brand new work, which has been done since the rejection of this Bill by this House last year, and surely, before wanting to pass a Bill and hinder this science, the House should listen to what has actually been done.
I wish now to refer to work done on dogs in connection with rickets. I brought forward this point last year, and I do not think the case which was made out then has been traversed by any of the supporters of this Bill. This is an experiment which would be hindered. The disease of rickets does cause a certain amount of pain to anybody suffering from it. It causes a great deal of pain to a baby suffering from it, and it causes pain to a foxhound suffering from it. Fox-hounds in kennels suffer from rickets, but if you conduct an experiment so as to be able to cure a child suffering from the complaint, down comes this Bill and says it is calculated to give this disease to a dog, and consequently the experiment must stop and no more work be done on the subject. And, mark you, this thing can only be carried out on a dog because a dog has a similar diet to a man, and his diet can be changed, and you can find out what is the particular ingredient that is missing I think it is of particular interest to the Labour men,
because there is no class in the whole of our country which suffers more from this dreadful disease of rickets than the children of the labouring classes. We know it in Glasgow, where there is a great deal of work being done, and we see it all over the world. I only want to point to the work which has been done in the last 12 months in regard to rickets. The Medical Research Committee, which was set up by this House, published a very strong and an absolutely unanimous recommendation about the Dogs Bill. I think, when the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), was reading the opinions of medical men, he might at least have given, to the House the opinions of the most influential Medical Committee in the country—one set up by Parliament and paid by Parliament. When you get a Report from these gentlemen showing that they consider the Dogs Protection Bill now before Parliament would mean serious and, in many instances, fatal hindrance to this work, their opinion is really of the utmost importance. This Committee has been working particularly on the question of rickets, and, as we all know, the recent famine in Central Europe has led to the most widespread prevalence of this disease in starving countries, and particularly in Vienna. We are all intensely interested in the remedy of diseases affecting Central Europe, and particularly this disease of rickets.

Sir F. BANBURY: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER withhold his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Captain ELLIOT: A lady doctor who was closely in touch with the new work done on nutrition has been sent out there by the Medical Research Committee, and her work has been of great help to the children of Vienna. [HON. MEMBEES: "Divide!" and Interruption.]

Lieut.-Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Captain ELLIOT: We have a Report here of their mission by this lady and a colleague, two doctors whose work has been of the greatest value to suffering
children in Vienna. It has been unanimously acknowledged in Vienna as one of the most important contributions that has recently been made to medical science, and particularly to the science of nutrition in Vienna. This Report is directly due to experiments conducted upon dogs in this country. No one hat; any right to say that this work has been of no value in medicine. You have got something like 200,000 children in Vienna of whom 80 per cent. suffer from rickets.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Due to the Coalition Government.

Captain ELLIOT: I do not quite agree. I have been in Vienna.

It being Five of the Clock, the Debate stood Adjourned.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at One Minute after Five o'clock, till Monday next, 22nd March, 1920.